IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 Thursday, 31 October 2019 1 a parish; is that right? 2 (10.15 am) 2 A. That's correct. 3 THE CHAIR: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Day 4 of 3 Q. You saw an advert for the role in the Catholic journal, 4 this public hearing. Mr Saad? 4 The Tablet, and you were interviewed by two vice-chairs 5 MR SAAD: Good morning, chair. The first witness this 5 of the commission, a general secretary of the Bishops' 6 morning is Mr Danny Sullivan. His statement and 6 Conference and a representative of the Conference of 7 supporting relevant documentation should be behind 7 the Religious, the CoR; is that right? 8 volume 1 in your bundle. Can the witness be sworn, 8 A. Yes. 9 please? 9 Q. You were offered the role, having had that interview, 10 MR DANNY SULLIVAN (sworn) 10 subject to it being ratified by the President of 11 Examination by MR SAAD 11 the Bishops' Conference and President of the Conference 12 MR SAAD: Your name, please? 12 of Religious; is that right? 13 A. Danny Sullivan. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. You were the chair of the National Catholic Safeguarding 14 Q. The first meeting that you attended was in March 2012. 15 Commission, the NCSC, were you not, from March 2012 15 I want to take you first, please, to a document, it's 16 to July 2015? 16 CHC001741_003. We will bring it up on screen, 17 A. Yes. 17 Mr Sullivan. To be clear about what this document is, 18 Q. In terms of your background, you had a career in 18 it's from an NCSC strategy day which took place on 19 education as a teacher, a head teacher, a schools 19 4 November 2011, so before your tenure. But what we see 20 advisor and Director of Education; is that right? 20 at the bottom of that document, if we could magnify the 21 A. That's correct. 21 SWOT analysis, is what was recorded in a discussion 22 Q. Before you took up the role of chair of the NCSC, you 22 about what those who attended the meeting determined to 23 were aware of the church's safeguarding structure from 23 be the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats 24 your attendance at your local parish and, indeed, your 24 of the commission, and what I wanted to ask you, given 25 wife was a volunteer safeguarding coordinator at 25 this was months before you started, is whether any of

Page 1 Page 2

1 these reflected the position as you took over the 1 A. I think, if that reflects the church taking seriously 2 commission? 2 safeguarding, then I would. 3 In the "Strengths" box, first of all -- I won't go 3 Q. Further down, it says, "Sign up to the 'One Church' 4 through each bullet point, but just a few of them: 4 approach". Did you feel, when you started at the NCSC, 5 "Independent professionals at every level." 5 that there was a sign-up to the "One Church" approach? 6 Would you agree with that? 6 A. No, and I made that clear in my statement. 7 A. I think safeguarding coordinators, if that's referring 7 Q. We will come on to that in more detail later. 8 to safeguarding coordinators, had a range of 8 Indeed, on that point, if one looks at the "Threats" 9 backgrounds. Sorry, I'm not quite sure what -- when 9 box in the bottom right, the second bullet point down 10 I got my bundle, I think this was the first time I'd 10 is: 11 seen this. 11 "Lack of 'One Church' and embedded culture of 12 Q. Yes, this isn't a document that you had anything to do 12 safeguarding." 13 with putting together, but what I'm asking is whether or 13 Does that reflect more closely your view of the 14 not this is something that you agreed or disagreed with, 14 situation? 15 as you took over from the NCSC? 15 A. I think that's fair comment. 16 A. I think, when I took over, I was learning about the 16 Q. Just dealing with weaknesses, the second bullet point 17 structures and the setups which, in a national sense, 17 down -- well, the second hyphen above the top bullet 18 I wasn't aware of. I had a very good briefing with 18 point, "Lack of sanction". It's right to say that if 19 Sister Jane Bertelson, who was the vice-chair, but it 19 someone were to not follow an NCSC or CSAS policy, there 20 was only as I continued as chair that I became aware of 20 was no sanction, there was no way of enforcing that; is 21 what the structures were across dioceses and what some 21 that right? 22 of the issues might be. 22 A. I think it would depend who it was. I think if there 23 Q. Halfway down the same box, a strength is identified as 23 was an issue about competence of a safeguarding 24 "CSAS as part of the church structure". Would you agree 24 coordinator, I think that would be dealt with through 25 with that? 25 the director of CSAS.

Page 3 Page 4 1 (Pages 1 to 4) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 Q. How? 1 the history and tradition of the Catholic Church, and 2 A. I would imagine that they would make clear that there 2 I think that's relevant in relation to abuse. I think 3 was -- if they weren't competent, that there would be 3 much abuse happened because children didn't know how to 4 threats, vulnerability to victims and survivors. 4 question a priest, if the priest was an abuser. They 5 I would see that more in terms of bishops and religious 5 wouldn't know how to tell their parents because of fear, 6 leaders. 6 because a priest would be on a pedestal, a figure of 7 Q. "Failure of bishops and CoR to grasp the importance of 7 authority, a figure of power. So I think that's where 8 this subject". Would you agree or disagree with that? 8 fear may come from. 9 A. Yes. I think, while guidelines and protocols might be 9 Q. Finally, under the "Threats" heading, it says: 10 agreed by Conference of Bishops as a body, how 10 "NCSC irrelevant." 11 individual bishops and leaders of religious orders then 11 Was there a feeling when you began at the NCSC that 12 implemented or followed them was another matter. 12 you were irrelevant? 13 Q. The bottom bullet point says "Fear". I know that isn't 13 A. I never heard that. I think there was certainly 14 your word, obviously, but was the word "fear" something 14 a discussion about whether we were heard and whether we 15 you detected when you started, or even during your 15 had any real authority or power. 16 tenure at all? 16 Q. Moving away from that document now, I am going to turn 17 A. I think, within the church, there are still people who 17 to paragraph 5 of your statement, Mr Sullivan, which is 18 have a fear of challenging authority because of the 18 on the first page of it, and deal with implementing the 19 power authority can have. 19 Cumberlege recommendations and developing future 20 Q. Who is it that has the fear? 20 strategy. 21 A. Perhaps people who want to challenge a religious leader 21 You say that during your tenure, you carried on the 22 or a bishop. They might fear to do that because they 22 practice of the commission to be led each year in 23 have significant power. I'm not making that as 23 a review of the implementation of Cumberlege by the then 24 a general statement about all bishops and all religious 24 director of CSAS, Adrian Child; is that right? 25 leaders. I think it goes back to an understanding of 25 A. Yes.

Page 5 Page 6

1 Q. There was a chart monitoring the progress of each of 1 each other. 2 those? 2 Q. In meetings with the director of CSAS, Mr Child, he 3 A. There is nothing on my screen at the moment. I don't 3 would outline progress and challenges to you and the 4 know if I'm meant to be reading something. 4 board would discuss those points, where appropriate. 5 Q. No, no, I'm just referring you to parts of your witness 5 You say the key point and strategic aim of the NCSC was 6 statement. If it is easier for you to have the document 6 the "One Church" approach; is that right? 7 in front of you -- 7 A. I think that was certainly a key priority. 8 A. No, that's okay. 8 Q. The review that you were undertaking, and I'm looking 9 Q. If I would like to take you to a document, I will 9 now at the bottom of paragraph 5 in your witness 10 signpost that for you. 10 statement, you say that a key aspect was the commitment 11 A lay member of the NCSC that joined after your 11 to recommendation from the Cumberlege Report to a "One 12 tenure has said that, from his perspective, he saw no 12 Church" approach to safeguarding and the challenges that 13 systematic approach to monitoring the implementation of 13 presented. This became a significant core strategic aim 14 Cumberlege. Do you feel, during your tenure, that there 14 for the commission to be implemented by the director of 15 was? 15 CSAS and his team. The review of the Cumberlege 16 A. I can certainly recall annually being presented by the 16 recommendations, you say, reflected the disconnect at 17 director of CSAS with the recommendations and progress 17 times, between having national guidelines and protocols 18 on them and discussion around them, which is why that 18 approved by all the bishops and religious leaders, and 19 triggered when I was asked about that. I did have 19 the actual implementation by each individual bishop or 20 a view, whether it's relevant or not, that for a report 20 religious leader. 21 to have something like -- I can't remember -- 21 You cite an example there of one bishop, 22 76 recommendations, was not helpful. I thought any 22 Crispian Hollis, the then Bishop of Portsmouth. When 23 good, effective, robust report would narrow down to 23 met by resistance from some clergy who did not see the 24 a core of recommendations that you really could then 24 need to go on residential safeguarding training, he made 25 take on board, but all 76 seemed to be on a par with 25 clear that he would remove their faculties as priests if

Page 7 Page 8 2 (Pages 5 to 8) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 they did not attend, whereas the bishops in Wales would 1 Q. You say that the director of CSAS would present 2 not co-operate with the programme as it stood, saying 2 a programme for the following year to the board, which 3 they could not release clergy for the three days 3 you would discuss and approve as the NCSC, and at each 4 required. Is that right? 4 meeting, the director, Mr Child, would give a progress 5 A. That's correct. 5 report on his work; is that right? 6 Q. So in relation to that one topic, there were different 6 A. Yes, and he did that in a traffic light system. He was 7 reactions to it between one part of the church and the 7 very efficient. So green for proceeding, progressing; 8 other? 8 amber, not quite there; red, not followed through, and 9 A. Yes. I mean, I can remember being at a meeting of the 9 then would give a reason, perhaps, why not followed 10 bishops when they gathered in conference, and one bishop 10 through. 11 asking what could be done about clergy who would not go 11 Q. There was a lack of progress on some of the action 12 on the training, and Bishop Crispian Hollis actually 12 plans; is that right? 13 standing up and saying, "You should do what I do. 13 A. Yes. 14 I told clergy who wouldn't go on the training that 14 Q. That was of some concern to you and the NCSC as a whole? 15 I would remove their faculties. That's what you should 15 A. Yes. 16 do". 16 Q. You commissioned a former Director of Education to 17 Q. So because there was a difference in attitude about one 17 review the auditing work of CSAS. Is that right? 18 topic, there was a discussion amongst the Bishops' 18 A. Yes. 19 Conference, was there, about what to do about that, and 19 Q. You also sought to explore with the NSPCC ways in which 20 the Bishop of Portsmouth said, well, effectively, he 20 it could externally monitor your auditing, but that was 21 would impose a sanction on clergy within his diocese, 21 something that was an initiative that was being looked 22 should they not attend the training? 22 into towards the end of your tenure, would that be -- 23 A. Yes. 23 A. It wasn't -- with the NSPCC, it wasn't to monitor. We 24 Q. Whereas other bishops did not take the same course? 24 were actually exploring whether they might carry out 25 A. Not as far as I'm aware. 25 thematic audits and across a number of dioceses, and

Page 9 Page 10

1 maybe choose an area of performance and actually look at 1 it's how the bishop then sees how he carries out 2 it across a range of dioceses, or if there were 2 policies and practices within his diocese. The bishop, 3 particular issues in particular audits, for them to go 3 ultimately, is only accountable to the Pope. 4 and have a second external objective view of the matter. 4 Q. I want to move on to the relationship between CSAS, 5 Q. Why is it that you were looking at external avenues 5 NCSC, and the two conferences, the Bishops' Conference 6 rather than asking CSAS to do that, for example? 6 and the Conference of Religious. You met regularly with 7 A. Because I think the objectivity that you would get from 7 the General Secretary of the Bishops' Conference; is 8 an external secular authority; I also thought if we did 8 that right? 9 that, then audits should be published. There was 9 A. Yes. And most of my time in particular with 10 a resistance to having the results of audits published. 10 Bishop Marcus Stock, who was then the general secretary. 11 Q. By whom? 11 Q. You met him with the director of CSAS to review 12 A. By dioceses, by bishops, they didn't want it in the 12 progress, discuss any issues? 13 public domain. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Why not? 14 Q. How often did you meet? 15 A. You would need to ask them. I assume that they wanted 15 A. I can't actually remember, but it was fairly regularly, 16 to handle it internally and sort it out. But I think if 16 I would think. It would at least be once every two 17 it's public, then you're publicly called to account. 17 months, I would think, and we could meet at short notice 18 I think it was interesting that all Catholic schools 18 if there was a particular issue, and certainly 19 were subject to public scrutiny by Ofsted, which is 19 Father Marcus was very open to that, very amenable. 20 a secular body, and had to follow its recommendations. 20 Q. If there was an issue that needed to be dealt with 21 So it wasn't as if that was a suggestion of something 21 quickly -- 22 that was terribly radical and different. 22 A. Very easily. 23 Q. Was it seen by some as radical and different? 23 Q. -- you felt able to meet with him at short notice? 24 A. I think one of the challenges and tensions has always 24 A. If there was an issue arising for him that he thought he 25 been that, once you return to a diocese, the bishop -- 25 needed to speak to me, or me and Adrian, he would get in

Page 11 Page 12 3 (Pages 9 to 12) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 touch with us straight away. 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. The bishops met residentially twice a year, and you 2 Q. So you had lines of communication with the CoR through 3 would attend that, would you? 3 that. Then you joined the NCSC, there were two 4 A. Yes, usually with Adrian Child, the director of CSAS. 4 vice-chairs, a bishop and a religious, and you 5 Q. You would give the bishops an update on the commission's 5 introduced a third chair, didn't you? 6 work. You say the Papal Nuncio also attended those 6 A. Yes. 7 meetings; is that correct? 7 Q. What was the purpose of that? 8 A. Yes. As far as I can remember, at that time, it was 8 A. Well, the -- my understanding of Cumberlege was that the 9 Archbishop Mennini. He was always present as a silent 9 chair of the commission always had to be a layperson, 10 observer when we did update on safeguarding matters. 10 not a bishop, and not a member of a religious order, and 11 Q. That was going to be my next question, what his role 11 my predecessor as chair was Baroness Scotland, and after 12 was, what his contributions were? 12 she left, there was a hiatus before my appointment, 13 A. I think he was there as the Papal Nuncio. Therefore, he 13 I think of about six months, and during that time the 14 had responsibility for all the bishops in England and 14 two vice-chairs would be referred to for any issues in 15 Wales, so he would attend the conference -- maybe not 15 relation to safeguarding -- Bishop Declan Lang and 16 the whole conference, but he would be a presence. 16 Sister Jane Bertelson -- which they did very 17 I just found it interesting and welcome that he sat in 17 competently, as far as I'm aware. But my feeling was 18 on that session. 18 that the lay voice should be there consistently; that if 19 Q. But did you say silent observer? 19 the chair was run over by a bus and somebody had to 20 A. Yes, he didn't -- 20 speak, then it should still be the lay representative of 21 Q. So not contributing -- 21 the commission in the role of chair, so the commission 22 A. As far as I can remember, he didn't intervene and speak 22 very happily supported -- I referred it to the President 23 in any of those sessions where I was present. 23 of the Bishops' Conference and the Conference of 24 Q. One or two members of the commission were represented on 24 Religious as a matter of courtesy. 25 the Conference of Religious, weren't they? 25 Q. What was the reaction?

Page 13 Page 14

1 A. No objection. 1 Q. How prevalent was that, are you able to say? 2 Q. No objection at all? 2 A. It's hard to gauge because people don't always make you 3 A. No. 3 aware of their position. They might simply, without 4 Q. Looking at paragraph 22 of your statement, which is on 4 your awareness, work against you. 5 page 5, you say: 5 Q. The next topic is ensuring the "One Church" approach. 6 "Whilst the church deserves some credit for finally 6 You say that was the most significant challenge during 7 confronting the scandal of abuse, it would be mistaken 7 your tenure. My question was going to be, why, but is 8 to think that from the outset everything was unanimous." 8 that the answer, the one you have just given? 9 You mean from the outset of your tenure? 9 A. Well, yes. I think I used the words in my statement 10 A. I think from the outset -- 10 "labyrinthian structures of the church". You know, the 11 Q. Full stop? 11 church is labyrinthian in its structures and people who 12 A. -- of Nolan and Cumberlege. 12 have been part of the church all their lives, if they 13 Q. "There were those, and I believe there are still those, 13 still have difficulty getting around the labyrinthian 14 who resented what they saw as the loss of local identity 14 structures, can you imagine what it is like for somebody 15 and autonomy in having to follow national procedures, 15 coming forward with an allegation of abuse? 16 guidelines and protocols." 16 Q. You say -- I'm looking now at paragraph 8 in your 17 Firstly, what was it that was being resented? 17 statement -- there was a difficulty in getting 18 A. Their perception of a loss of autonomy of the diocese. 18 safeguarding structures in place across the varied 19 The diocese -- dioceses were perfectly capable of 19 religious congregations, and it was Adrian Child that 20 managing safeguarding themselves and didn't need 20 led the charge on that. How did he do that? 21 national structure and national setup. That was made 21 A. I think he -- because it was a strategy of 22 clear to me by Sister Jane in my briefing before I took 22 the commission and the commission was strategic, it was 23 up my role as chair, that there was still resistance 23 Adrian's responsibility to try and put that into 24 from some people and there were still people who 24 practice, and he worked consistently with members of the 25 resented not having diocesan autonomy. 25 Conference of Religious, met with them regularly, where

Page 15 Page 16 4 (Pages 13 to 16) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 they thrashed out and ironed out a way forward. 1 were subject to audit and committed to the national 2 Q. Did it come down to this, that he suggested that either 2 structures and guidelines. 3 the religious orders could become part of the diocesan 3 Q. That formula, if you like, you say was difficult to 4 safeguarding structure and make a financial contribution 4 achieve, and you say that the day before that approach 5 to the work of that safeguarding office, or any 5 was to be ratified, you had heard that some members of 6 religious order wishing to retain its own safeguarding 6 the CoR were determined to prevent it from taking place. 7 structure would agree to follow all of the national 7 Is that right? 8 structures and guidelines and protocols and to agree to 8 A. Yes. Yes, I was informed the day before that -- 9 be part of the auditing process? 9 Q. By whom, sorry? 10 A. Yes. I mean, I think two comments about that. I think 10 A. A representative -- I can't remember the individual, but 11 the first part was a justice issue, because the reality 11 by a representative of the religious orders that they 12 before the recommendations for a "One Church" approach 12 would put a block on it. 13 was that if religious orders were struggling with the 13 Q. Did you have any understanding of the rationale behind 14 safeguarding issue, they would go to the diocese and 14 that, beyond what's already been said of loss of 15 look for, and hope for, support and help, which no 15 autonomy? 16 diocese would refuse. But that was taking up diocesan 16 A. Simply they didn't want it. Some people still didn't 17 safeguarding coordinator time and resource. So the 17 want it and, therefore, they would block it. And my 18 justice issue was that it should be paid for, and 18 response simply was to say, "Well, if they block it, 19 I think that was fair, but also, there was the wider and 19 I hope they're comfortable with the fact that I will 20 more important theological issue that the church should 20 immediately issue a press statement and say why it's 21 speak with one voice about safeguarding. 21 been blocked and who has blocked it". 22 The latter point was that some religious orders, and 22 Q. That was a, may I call it a threat that you gave 23 I would perhaps refer to the Jesuits, had very good 23 directly back to the person that told you this was going 24 commission setup and structure and, actually, if they 24 to be blocked? 25 wanted to continue with that, why not, as long as they 25 A. I think it was a simple statement of fact of what

Page 17 Page 18

1 I would do. 1 is abuse is abuse, and to kind of try and say, "Well, 2 Q. The following day, it was passed? 2 I can't comment on that because that's to do with 3 A. Mmm. 3 a religious order", is not actually acceptable. 4 Q. Do you feel that the idea that blocking it would be 4 Q. Now, you also say that when the church would not meet 5 given to the press, the idea of that, do you think that 5 victims and survivors, they cited advice from their 6 had any -- do you think that helped you get the proposal 6 insurance lawyers? 7 through? 7 A. Or their lawyers. 8 A. I have no idea. 8 Q. And advised that a meeting may imply accountability, and 9 Q. But you also say, in fairness to Mr Child, he was 9 they must protect the assets of the diocese or the 10 instrumental in getting this through and it was as 10 religious order. How often did you hear that? 11 a result of a lot of the work that he'd done? 11 A. I heard that on quite a number of occasions, and I heard 12 A. Yes. 12 bishops discuss it openly, about the tension they felt 13 Q. You do say, though, that this -- what could not change 13 between being pastoral and then being given legal advice 14 is how Rome handled allegations separately from the 14 about how they should behave, and which one should be 15 clergy and members of the religious orders, and you 15 the more important. I obviously thought pastoral. 16 believe that this allowed some orders to behave 16 Q. What was the priority that you felt the church had? 17 uncooperatively as they are not under the authority of 17 A. Well, I think there's obviously examples where bishops 18 the local bishop; is that right? 18 and leaders of the religious orders took legal advice 19 A. Yes. I think things improved some -- a bit. I think, 19 and, therefore, wouldn't meet with victims and wouldn't 20 in the past, perhaps, before my time as chair, it wasn't 20 engage with them, wouldn't hear their stories. 21 unusual, if there was an abuse case in the public, and 21 Q. Could I take you, please, to a document we will have put 22 it was to do with a religious order, that a bishop might 22 on screen, CSA005835_007. Now, these are minutes from 23 say that he couldn't comment because it was a matter for 23 a national safeguarding meeting -- not one that you 24 the religious order. I think "One Church" wanted to 24 attended, but it is chaired, is it not, by the director 25 drive a coach and horses through that. You know, abuse 25 of CSAS and attended also by all of the safeguarding

Page 19 Page 20 5 (Pages 17 to 20) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 coordinators in England and Wales. I just wanted to ask 1 A. I think he was right. You know, that's -- I think that 2 you about the final bullet point in item 15, and so this 2 was always a very good point. 3 is a summary, really, of views expressed by safeguarding 3 Q. Moving on to the next topic, which is resources, at your 4 coordinators during your tenure in February 2014. It 4 interview for the role -- I'm looking at paragraph 12 of 5 says: 5 your witness statement -- you expressed disappointment 6 "Trustees can often be led more by financial matters 6 that the role was one day a week and was voluntary. At 7 than safeguarding issues, which is difficult for the 7 the interview, Bishop Marcus Stock, who you have 8 safeguarding coordinator." 8 referred to already, then the General Secretary of the 9 Did you feel, from your time, that this was 9 Bishops' Conference, said he would explore that issue, 10 a problem felt by safeguarding coordinators? 10 and indeed he found the finances for the role to be 11 A. Yes, yes, because I think safeguarding coordinators are 11 remunerated, and obviously the view that you expressed 12 sometimes the first port of call for the survivor or for 12 in the interview didn't prevent your appointment. 13 the victim and, therefore, they are very aware of the 13 Resourcing of the CSAS team, you say, always needs 14 impact of abuse on the individual, and then you've got 14 monitoring. They were employees of the trustees of 15 trustees who are maybe being advised about legal 15 bishops. So it's they that determine the pay and 16 implications. 16 conditions of CSAS. What's your view about that? 17 Adrian Child had a very interesting view, in terms 17 Should NCSC have more of a role in determining what 18 of trustees being responsible for a charity, in terms of 18 resources CSAS has? 19 the diocese, and that, actually, as a charity, the 19 A. Yes. I mean, in some ways, I suppose, at the end of the 20 diocese was responsible for using its resources on 20 day, I always felt CSAS should be resourced by the 21 behalf of the people, for the benefit of the people 21 church for its work, because it's significant and the 22 within the diocese, and I think Adrian's view was: well, 22 most important work that the church does. But, 23 who would be more in need of that benefit than survivors 23 actually, they should equally be independent, and you 24 and victims of abuse? 24 can monitor independent bodies in any way that you want 25 Q. What was your view? 25 to monitor them. Because -- it was a kind of mismatch,

Page 21 Page 22

1 in a sense. I was fortunate in working with 1 first Bishops' Conference meeting, residential meeting, 2 Father Marcus Stock as general secretary, because he was 2 after my appointment, which would have been after Easter 3 open, transparent and always wanting to do his best in 3 2012, I remember saying -- one of the things I said was, 4 supporting safeguarding. 4 "If you are looking for me, as chair of the NCSC, to 5 Some people might think that was because I knew him 5 resolve the issue of safeguarding, then you'll be very 6 in an earlier life. When I was Director of Education 6 disappointed, because it's not an issue; it's something 7 for the Anglican Bishop of Oxford, he was Director of 7 that's always going to be with us", and I think my view 8 Education for the Archbishop of Birmingham. In that 8 is that some people saw it -- some bishops saw it, and 9 life, we actually had a major issue between the two 9 religious leaders saw it, as an issue. 10 dioceses, where we thoroughly disagreed, so it was very 10 Q. To be dealt with and then to move on thereafter? 11 interesting to work with somebody that you've thoroughly 11 A. An irritating issue that wouldn't go away. 12 disagreed with in the past and campaigned against in the 12 Q. How prevalent was that feeling, that this was an 13 past. He couldn't have been more supportive. 13 irritation? 14 But it shouldn't be down to the support of 14 A. I wouldn't say widely prevalent, but it was still there. 15 individuals, and I think that's why I came to the 15 Q. Some bishops commented to you that they would like to 16 conclusion at the end of my statement which I did. 16 spend more on safeguarding, but there were other areas 17 Q. We will come on to that in a moment. 17 that needed resources as well, and so it was difficult 18 But you make the point, if CSAS had more personnel, 18 to -- 19 more auditing could have been done. The funding for 19 A. Yes. 20 safeguarding, in your view, reflected the church's 20 Q. -- devote what they wanted to? 21 approach of dealing with the problem. It was more 21 A. That was a bishop who was very committed to 22 dealing with a problem and addressing an issue, you 22 safeguarding, but also talked about, "Well, we have got 23 felt, rather than a profound understanding of the 23 other pressures and demands as well". 24 experience of victims and survivors; is that right? 24 Q. What could your response be to a comment like that? 25 A. I think that's a very good reading. When I went to my 25 A. "There could be no bigger priority than victims and

Page 23 Page 24 6 (Pages 21 to 24) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 survivors who have been criminally abused". 1 would put in what she thought was needed. 2 Q. To which the response was? 2 Q. Do you think, to have a better feel for how the strategy 3 A. Silence. 3 the NCSC is seeking to implement, for you to have that 4 Q. At times, you felt that the church's priority was still 4 better feel, you would need to know information like 5 its reputation? 5 budget spend per parts of the church? 6 A. Yes. 6 A. I think if you even knew that, I don't know what -- you 7 Q. You say "at times". Was that a regular feeling, an 7 might have some influence by saying, "I would like you 8 irregular feeling? 8 to spend more on safeguarding", but, again, the autonomy 9 A. It would vary. It would vary. 9 of the archbishop or the bishop or the religious leader 10 Q. Can I ask you, did you have any oversight over the 10 to side with the financial director and what the 11 budgets that individual parts of the church were 11 priorities of the diocese were, I would assume they 12 devoting to safeguarding? 12 would see that as their priority. But you could lend 13 A. No. 13 a critical voice. 14 Q. So you would have no -- you wouldn't be given 14 I mean, I made reference to the fact that the 15 information that the Archdiocese of Birmingham, for 15 Bishop of Menavia appointed a coordinator who did not 16 example, halved its safeguarding spend in a year? 16 meet the national requirements for a safeguarding 17 A. No. 17 coordinator. Now, I was conscious that the Diocese of 18 Q. Do you think you should have more of an oversight? 18 Menavia is a poor diocese financially. For example, as 19 A. CSAS would be given their budget, like other parts of 19 far as I know, it's supported by other dioceses if it 20 the church that worked in family, or whatever, but, you 20 has any students for the priesthood. I can remember in 21 know, Adrian might say what he needed and then he'd be 21 that conversation with the bishop about appointing 22 given a budget. The PA I had, Rose Anderson, who had 22 somebody who I regarded as inappropriate for the post, 23 a long history of working with the commission, was great 23 or his background inappropriate for the post, that if 24 for insight in narrative and history of the commission, 24 the issue was finance, then maybe I could explore ways 25 and she handled the budget for the commission and she 25 of supporting the diocese, and the offer wasn't

Page 25 Page 26

1 accepted. 1 A. The media office. They removed that last sentence where 2 Q. Why not? If the problem was resources and you could 2 I said the Catholic Church apologises unreservedly, and 3 help with that? 3 I rang them then and said, "Why have you removed the 4 A. You would need to ask the Bishop of Menavia. 4 last sentence?", and the media person said, "The church 5 Q. Dealing with resources for the NCSC, again, you felt the 5 has already apologised for abuse", and I said, "Well, if 6 need for some independent media support because, up to 6 you don't reinstate the sentence, you can't put the 7 that point, the media support you had had was via the -- 7 statement out. I will make my own statement". 8 was the Bishops' Media Office, and that was something 8 Q. This is a dialogue between you and the media office? 9 you relayed to Bishop Marcus Stock and he found the 9 A. Mmm. So the sentence was reinstated. 10 resources for that for the three years; is that right? 10 Q. It was reinstated? 11 A. That's right. That was because the first time I was 11 A. Mmm. 12 asked to make a statement, at the time I was doing some 12 Q. And it was ultimately published? 13 consultancy work for the Department of Education, and 13 A. Yes. 14 I got a phone call from the Bishops' Media Office saying 14 Q. But that was an occasion that caused you to think, 15 there was going to be something in the news about 15 "I need some independent" -- 16 potentially a public inquiry into abuse and did I want 16 A. That reinforced my feeling that the media office were 17 to make a statement about it, they'd like me to make 17 accountable to the Bishops' Conference. If I was going 18 a statement about it. So I very quickly made 18 to make a public statement critical of a bishop or 19 a statement and sent it off and got a reply by email 19 a religious leader, I could be putting them in 20 saying, "Your statement is fine. Here is what we are 20 a difficult position, and Marcus was very understanding 21 going to put out", and they had removed my last 21 about that and very helpful. 22 sentence, where I said, "The Catholic Church 22 Q. Dealing now with the topic of the NCSC's independence, 23 unreservedly apologises to all victims and survivors of 23 the director of CSAS was technically line managed by the 24 abuse". 24 General Secretary of the Bishops' Conference; is that 25 Q. Sorry, who did? 25 right?

Page 27 Page 28 7 (Pages 25 to 28) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 A. Yes. 1 I think, despite many opportunities, I don't think, 2 Q. You inherited a system in which you would share 2 universally, the church is yet in a position to be 3 oversight of the director of CSAS with the general 3 trusted with oversight completely of safeguarding. 4 secretary. Is that also right? 4 Q. So it should be -- the oversight should come from 5 A. With Marcus, yes. And Marcus was very collaborative, 5 a secular organisation? 6 very open, very supportive. 6 A. Yes, which reports to the bishops and the religious 7 Q. It was the NCSC that gave the strategic direction to 7 leaders. 8 CSAS? 8 Q. You also say -- I'm looking at paragraph 23 of your 9 A. Yes. 9 statement: 10 Q. But your view is, to be truly independent, CSAS and the 10 "For the commission to be independent, it needed to 11 NCSC -- you have already touched upon this -- should be 11 have real authority, yet it was powerless to enforce 12 funded by the church, but for it not to have any 12 compliance." 13 oversight from the Bishops' Conference or the Conference 13 I want to deal with a number of separate instances 14 of Religious; is that right? 14 in which this issue arose. Firstly, you give a number 15 A. Yes. 15 of examples in your paragraph 23, which is at the top of 16 Q. So the structure of NCSC and CSAS you don't take issue 16 page 6. The first example you give is when the 17 with, but it's -- it's there shouldn't be the oversight 17 Archbishop of Westminster refused to meet a victim. Is 18 that there is of the conferences; is that right? 18 that Cardinal Nichols? 19 A. I think it's -- for its accountability and 19 A. Yes. 20 responsibility, it's healthy for the church to have 20 Q. Just to be clear, the NCSC don't deal with individual 21 a safeguarding structure nationally and locally. 21 cases, so how is it that you became aware of this issue? 22 I think the oversight of it -- and I think it should be 22 A. Because there'd been concerns in the commission about 23 funded appropriately and properly by the Bishops' 23 the functioning of Westminster -- 24 Conference and the Conference of Religious. I think 24 Q. Generally? 25 oversight externally would be much more healthy, because 25 A. -- generally. This related to an allegation which had

Page 29 Page 30

1 been made before Archbishop Nichols was Archbishop of 1 Q. When I asked you earlier about what would happen if 2 Westminster against [redacted]. 2 somebody wasn't complying with a particular procedure, 3 MR SAAD: Can we stop the feed there, please? I will ask, 3 you said it kind of depended on the level, and if it was 4 chair, if you make a restriction order in relation to 4 a safeguarding coordinator, there may be recourse for 5 that, and we will start the feed again. 5 the NCSC. But if it's an archbishop, and an archbishop 6 In relation to the restriction order, I will pause 6 refuses to do something you would like the archbishop to 7 that application. It may be made in due course, but 7 do, that's the end of it, is it? There's no coming back 8 there may be further discussions before the application 8 from that? 9 is formally made. But we ask that the feed is stopped. 9 A. Well, I suppose, technically, I could have come to the 10 Can I deal with the issue in this way: you became 10 Papal Nuncio. I don't know where it would have gone. 11 aware of an issue in which the Archbishop of Westminster 11 It would have been lost in the labyrinth, I would 12 refused to meet a victim. He refused to do so. What 12 suspect. 13 were you able to do about that -- firstly, what was your 13 Q. You had a similar issue with the Bishop of Shrewsbury, 14 view as to the refusal? Was it the right thing to do or 14 who refused to meet the mother of a victim. And you 15 the wrong thing to do? 15 have also -- you have already touched on this, actually, 16 A. It was the wrong thing to do. 16 the Bishop of Menavia said that he would ignore national 17 Q. How did you plan to deal with the issue at that point? 17 procedures for the appointment of the diocesan 18 A. I said, if he wasn't willing to meet with the -- 18 safeguarding coordinator. So you relayed to him your 19 Q. Victim? 19 concern about the qualifications of the person that 20 A. -- victim, then, at the very least, he could write to 20 you'd appointed and the qualifications didn't meet the 21 her. I indicated, if he did write to her, he should not 21 standards. Was that your view? 22 be surprised at the kind of response he might get, 22 A. Yes. Yes, the only experience of safeguarding that the 23 because she really wanted to meet with him. 23 coordinator for Menavia had was that he provided rest 24 He did write to her, and he did get the response 24 for a family who had a seriously disabled child and 25 that I thought he would get. 25 therefore had to go through safeguarding checks. That

Page 31 Page 32 8 (Pages 29 to 32) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 does not qualify you to be a safeguarding coordinator. 1 do it, they regard it as -- they use the phrase 2 I think, in terms of the bishop who wouldn't meet the 2 "secondary abuse", because it's yet another case of not 3 mother of the teenage child, I found that particularly 3 being heard, not being listened to, and the Comboni 4 sad, that a teenager who had been groomed by his parish 4 survivors and victims in particular have been all over 5 priest and then abused by him, that a bishop could not 5 the labyrinthian structures of the church, and been 6 bring himself to meet with his mother. 6 consistently ignored. 7 Q. We will come on to now another example that you cite 7 Q. Can I have on screen, please, INQ004675. This is 8 from the provincial leader of the Comboni Order, but you 8 a newspaper article that relates to this issue, and if 9 cite that the examples mentioned are of a wider malaise, 9 we go, please, to page 6 first, I want to go to the 10 you say, within the church and the inability of the 10 bottom paragraph, please: 11 church to trust lay people with authority. How does 11 "The statement concludes with the current head of 12 this inability impact on safeguarding and the protection 12 the order in the UK, Father Martin Devenish, saying: 'We 13 of children from abuse, in your view? 13 know that anyone subjected to abusive behaviour will 14 A. I think, if you have no independent authority, if you 14 experience suffering and we are dismayed to think such 15 can only point out -- if you can only make clear what 15 suffering may have been caused to youngsters who 16 somebody should do, which maybe in the wider secular 16 attended our junior seminary. If that is the case, we 17 world it might be fairly obvious that that's what you 17 are deeply sorry to anyone who has been hurt in this way 18 should do, then you're quite impotent. Therefore, you 18 and our thoughts and prayers are with them'." 19 leave victims and survivors still wondering about what 19 You took issue with the way that the apology was 20 had happened to them and why nobody would hear them, 20 phrased; in particular, the qualification within it. 21 really, and would not sit down with them and apologise 21 Some correspondence flowed from that article. 22 for what happened to them. 22 If we can go to that, please. In the first 23 I think, as I said, some survivors and victims 23 instance, CMO000009_001. This is a letter that you 24 regard a bishop or religious leader not being willing to 24 wrote to a relevant publication in response to what had 25 meet with them face to face and refusing point blank to 25 been said by Father Martin Devenish. You say:

Page 33 Page 34

1 "The Roman Catholic Church will always be judged on 1 from ministry of an archbishop accused of abuse who was 2 how it engages with victims and survivors of abuse. 2 a Papal Nuncio and placing him under house arrest and 3 Unfortunately, the account of the experience of victims 3 subject to trial in Vatican State, is making a clear 4 in relation to the then Verona Fathers reflects a stark 4 statement of intent to all victims." 5 difference of attitude from that of Pope Francis. 5 But the article you refer to says it "shows just how 6 "I was present at the mass where Pope Francis 6 far we have yet to go". Why did you feel compelled to 7 addressed all victims and survivors of abuse in 7 wrote this letter and have it published? 8 a Catholic Church setting. Where the leader of the now 8 A. The Observer article came out at a time when 9 Comboni Missionaries indicates that if anyone (and note 9 Pope Francis and his predecessor even, Pope Benedict, 10 the qualification [it is the word 'if']) has been hurt 10 had stated that the first thing to be done, in terms of 11 by one of its priests, his thoughts and prayers are with 11 allegations of abuse, is to meet with victims, to meet 12 them, Pope Francis identified the experience of 12 with survivors, and to listen to them, and to offer 13 survivors of abuse and humbly asked forgiveness. He 13 support and care in any way possible. 14 even more profoundly begged forgiveness of those who 14 When I read that article, I was aware of the 15 were not believed or listened to and he praised the 15 suffering, individually and collectively, of the 16 courage of survivors in coming forward, recognising how 16 survivors and victims of the Comboni Order, and I think 17 difficult that is in itself. 17 anybody with any awareness of abuse, criminal abuse, 18 "Evidence shows that paedophiles have, on average, 18 would know that the number of false allegations that 19 at least four victims and often significantly more the 19 come forward is insignificant in statistical terms, and 20 longer they remain undetected, a profoundly painful 20 that if one victim comes forward, always in your mind 21 reality that all of us in the Catholic Church need to 21 should be, "Where are at least the other three?", 22 recognise. Victims and survivors of abuse will only 22 because good, longitudinal academic research shows that 23 believe statements from the church when private practice 23 most paedophiles have at least four victims. 24 matches public pronouncements. 24 So I suppose I was appalled that a religious leader 25 "Pope Francis this year, by approving the removal 25 could still qualify the pain and the criminal abuse of

Page 35 Page 36 9 (Pages 33 to 36) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 people who were children in his order, when they were at 1 support. I was advised not to by my trustees and by my 2 school, and didn't follow any of the guidelines. It 2 lawyers, so I met with them individually and offered 3 said, in the first instance, you meet and you listen, 3 them pastoral and financial support. Eleven of them 4 you know, which Pope Francis indicated, you know, the 4 said they found that helpful. One said it changed 5 courage in coming forward. 5 nothing. But I did it. And that's what you do". 6 As far as I'm aware, there is a significant number 6 Q. You wrote that letter which was published, and that 7 of Comboni survivors and victims. As far as I'm aware, 7 caused you to receive correspondence directly from 8 at least one has committed suicide. It was interesting 8 Father Martin Devenish. If we could go to 9 that the first thing Pope Francis referred to in the 9 CMO000006_001, please, written directly to you from the 10 experience of victims and survivors was suicide. You 10 Comboni Missionaries, and Father Martin Devenish. 11 know, they can't any longer live with that. 11 I would like to go to the second paragraph first, 12 I was able to compare what the response of the 12 please: 13 Comboni religious order was to a Canadian archbishop who 13 "Firstly, I would like to know whether you made any 14 spoke at a conference in Rome, the Anglophone 14 attempts to contact me before writing your letter in 15 conference, which is for English-speaking dioceses 15 response to that article? I received no messages that 16 across the world, it's an annual conference in Rome on 16 you had attempted to contact me, nor did our 17 safeguarding. He was responding to an embarrassing 17 spokesperson quoted in the article, Miss Kathy Perrin of 18 question from a Scottish bishop who said, "How should 18 CCIA. I am sure you are well aware that newspaper 19 I relate to victims and survivors when they come to 19 articles are notoriously subjective and inaccurate and, 20 me?", which I thought was an interesting question in 20 in view of that, I consider that it is wholly 21 itself from a bishop. The archbishop stood up and said, 21 unacceptable for you to have written publicly about this 22 "You meet with them and you listen to them. I had 12 22 matter without first having given me the opportunity to 23 victims and survivors who came forward to me separately 23 address your concerns. Even the journalist had the 24 alleging abuse by one of my deceased priests. I decided 24 courtesy to contact me for a comment before going into 25 to meet them and offer them pastoral and financial 25 print."

Page 37 Page 38

1 Did you seek to speak with him before publishing the 1 the impact of criminal childhood abuse on the survivor 2 letter? 2 and victim, his family, his life, her life, the people 3 A. No. 3 they may marry, the people they may live with, the 4 Q. Why not? 4 children they have, how they live their lives, and it's 5 A. I didn't think it was necessary. He'd made his position 5 the courage -- I mean, Pope Francis acknowledged the 6 clear, and I wished to challenge that position. 6 courage it takes to come forward. 7 Q. If you are trying to drive forward the "One Church" 7 When the Savile affair broke, NAPAC, the charity 8 approach and bring all of the parts of the church 8 that works with adults who have been abused in 9 together, was this not something that may have alienated 9 childhood, said their phone calls went up from 200 10 that part of the church from that objective? 10 a week to 2,000, and the oldest adult who rang them was 11 A. No, I think it was important to challenge a religious 11 85, and said, at last, she thought she could speak to 12 leader who was ignoring the words of Pope Benedict, the 12 somebody about what happened to her. 13 words and actions of Pope Francis, national guidelines 13 So at 85, that childhood abuse was still with her. 14 and protocols which talked about meeting with victims 14 Q. Can I deal with the remainder of the correspondence 15 and survivors and listening to them and offering 15 between you and Father Martin Devenish in this way: you 16 pastoral support, and I later made a reference to the 16 responded, reminding him of the responsibility that you 17 De La Salle Order, who had allegations going back to 17 had, as chair of the NCSC, for the needs and rights of 18 a school in the 1950s and where they stated 18 victims of abuse. His response was that it was 19 apologetically to the survivors and victims they no 19 difficult for him to know how to deal with press 20 longer had any records from that school so they couldn't 20 statements like this, and he cited what he saw as a lack 21 follow anything through in terms of the records, but 21 of guidance from the NCSC about how to deal with it. 22 they unreservedly apologised, they offered to meet with 22 Would you agree that there was a lack of guidance from 23 them, they offered to give them pastoral and, I would 23 the NCSC about how to deal with issues of that nature? 24 assume, financial support, because one of the things 24 A. Usually, dioceses and -- archdioceses and religious 25 that gets lost in statements like the Combonis made is 25 orders have people who give them media advice. If

Page 39 Page 40 10 (Pages 37 to 40) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 anybody had come to me, I would have been quite happy to 1 that right? 2 pass them on to the independent media advisor I had. 2 A. Yes. 3 But, usually, they used their own. 3 Q. There was discussion about its moving from there to the 4 Q. I have been asked to ask you, on a slightly separate 4 office in Eccleston Square, the Catholic Trust office. 5 note, do you believe that Canon law acts as an inhibitor 5 There was opposition to that idea, wasn't there? 6 to safeguarding in the church? 6 A. Yes. 7 A. I think I'd like to answer that question in a particular 7 Q. What was the opposition to it? What was the rationale 8 way: I think, in the way that abuse allegations are 8 for it? 9 handled by the Congregation for the Doctrine of 9 A. I think the director of CSAS and CSAS felt the distance 10 the Faith in Rome, because they're handled 10 from the national setup in Eccleston Square in London 11 administratively and apparently in accordance with Canon 11 was not unhealthy, and the team had been built around -- 12 law, priests who have been accused can write to the 12 I think, if I'm right, it was an accident of history 13 Congregation and get a response; a victim or survivor 13 that following Nolan and Cumberlege, Vincent Nichols, 14 who writes gets no response and, in fact, 14 who was then Archbishop of Birmingham, became kind of 15 Cardinal Mueller, who was previously the chair of that 15 chair of overseeing what was going on. 16 Congregation, Cardinal Mueller, has said publicly it 16 Q. The COPCA management board? 17 wasn't his place to write to victims and survivors, the 17 A. It may simply have been a matter of convenience that, if 18 local bishops could do it. 18 that was all happening under his watch as 19 Q. Back on to the topic of the independence NCSC and CSAS 19 Archbishop of Birmingham, then Birmingham was not a bad 20 had, I want to deal, please, with a document 20 place to have the setup. 21 CHC002020_017-018. This is minutes of a meeting of the 21 Q. I want to deal with what's said in the minutes, 22 board of trustees, the Catholic Trust for England and 22 particularly the paragraph beginning "In discussion": 23 Wales. It is right, isn't it, that during your -- at 23 "In discussion, the trustees noted that the risks 24 the beginning of your tenure -- correct me if I am 24 which both the NCSC and CSAS had outlined with regard to 25 wrong -- CSAS were based in an office in Birmingham; is 25 this proposed move were manageable. Monsignor Stock

Page 41 Page 42

1 also noted that, at present, there is a lack of clarity 1 the staff, so it's a matter of what you know you can 2 about the respective roles of the NCSC and CSAS and 2 actually really change or what you can't. So if you 3 their relationship to CaTEW. Some people see CaTEW as 3 can't change fundamentally -- if you don't have the 4 purely an 'employer of convenience' and that CSAS is 4 power to change that relationship, where the resource 5 effectively an agency of NCSC, not the Bishops' 5 and the finances are in the hands of somebody else, then 6 Conference. The proposal [in other words, for CSAS to 6 I think what you try to do is ameliorate the situation 7 move into the building with the Trust] may help to 7 in the move. 8 rectify this misunderstanding." 8 Q. Can I deal with the next point here, which is 9 Was it the misunderstanding that the CSAS were an 9 Adrian Child. Now, without consultation with you, 10 agency of the NCSC? 10 Adrian Child was told, wasn't he, that his tenure as 11 A. It's the first time I've seen this. It's the first time 11 director of CSAS was ending? 12 I've seen that Marcus took that view. He certainly 12 A. Adrian -- it was a Tuesday in February. I was due to 13 never communicated it to me. The move from Birmingham 13 meet that day with Adrian and Father Chris Thomas, who 14 to London was, as far as I can remember, communicated to 14 was the general secretary of CSAS. Ostensibly, we were 15 me that they didn't think the building was all that safe 15 meeting in relation to the fact that Adrian had raised 16 and satisfactory; that it would be good for an important 16 whistleblowing complaints. So the only people who knew 17 body like CSAS to be at the heart of the Bishops' 17 we were meeting that day, as far as I was aware -- 18 Conference. 18 I think they said if a trustee came -- were 19 When Marcus gave me the original timetable, I said 19 Father Chris Thomas, Adrian, my PA -- because I always 20 it was unacceptable, far too short for people to find 20 kept him informed of my movements -- 21 other roles if they couldn't move, and everything else, 21 Q. Sorry to cut across you. May I deal with it in this 22 and he very generously agreed the date that I proposed. 22 way: if I take you to a document CHC002020_022, these 23 I felt that, in the commission, we didn't have much 23 are the minutes of the meeting in which the trustees -- 24 of a hand. You know, the trustees were responsible for 24 so not a meeting that you were present at, but I just 25 the rent and lease of the building, for the salaries of 25 want to go through the chronology. It was

Page 43 Page 44 11 (Pages 41 to 44) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 29 January 2015. If we look at what's said beneath 1 originally agreed ..." 2 "Confidential item": 2 As you said, a few days later, you were informed of 3 "Father Chris Thomas informed the board of an issue 3 that decision. The fact is, you weren't consulted about 4 which had arisen regarding the current director of CSAS 4 that decision, you weren't asked what your view was 5 and his conditions of service." 5 before the decision was made; is that right? 6 It goes on to discuss that Mr Child had been offered 6 A. No, I was informed by email in the knowledge that I was 7 a redundancy package when the service moved its location 7 meant to be in hospital. 8 from Birmingham to London, which officially takes effect 8 Q. You felt that that undermined your position, and it 9 at the end of the month following this meeting: 9 breached the trust required to work effectively, and so 10 "In addition, the possibility of his continuing to 10 you resigned? 11 work part time until the end of December 2015 was 11 A. Yes, because the NCSC is responsible for the strategic 12 negotiated and a bonus agreed if he did remain in post 12 direction of safeguarding and for the implementation of 13 till that date. This was done in order to ensure some 13 that direction by CSAS. 14 handover between himself and the new director once 14 Q. You described, when you started your role, that you had 15 appointed. However, his way of managing the office and 15 inherited a shared oversight of the director of CSAS, 16 CSAS staff was becoming disruptive to the building as 16 and this was a decision that wasn't shared with you? 17 a whole, and he was still not using the correct 17 A. That was informal, and maybe that was part of the 18 reporting lines. Despite the fact that the general 18 problem, but it worked very well with Father Marcus. 19 secretary is his line manager as an employee of CaTEW, 19 Q. After you resigned, you were asked to withdraw your 20 Mr Child still refers everything in the first instance 20 resignation, and you said you would, provided Mr Child 21 to Danny Sullivan as chair of the NCSC. 21 was reinstated without prejudice? 22 "Having discussed the situation in detail, the 22 A. Yes. 23 trustees agreed that the most suitable course of action 23 Q. That was done? 24 would be to activate the redundancy package as soon as 24 A. Yes. 25 possible and to bring Mr Child's employment to an end as 25 Q. An inquiry was commissioned by the Archbishop of

Page 45 Page 46

1 Southwark on behalf of the Archbishop of Westminster 1 basis -- made against the diocese relating to a deceased 2 that vindicated Mr Child? 2 priest on the basis the diocese was not vicariously 3 A. Vindicated the issues that he raised. 3 liable for the actions of a priest, and you felt, 4 Q. Yes. And, all in all, you felt that this undermined the 4 because of that, some victims and survivors actually 5 commitment to the independence of the commission? 5 chose to stop working with the commission. 6 A. Absolutely. 6 You tried to re-engage and appointed a Victims and 7 Q. And reinforces your belief that the bishops and 7 Survivors Advisory Board, and that was beginning to take 8 religious should not have oversight over safeguarding 8 shape as you -- 9 and, instead, that ought to be done by a secular body? 9 A. I think the chronology is important. I asked the lay 10 A. Yes. 10 vice-chair, Denise Moultrie, who was a social work 11 Q. Now, in terms of engaging with victims and survivors -- 11 inspector in Wales, I asked her to review what we had 12 chair, I know we are coming up to 11.30 am, but I have 12 had, how it went wrong, and what we might do in the 13 about five minutes left, if I may continue? 13 future, and I don't think Denise Moultrie has had the 14 THE CHAIR: Yes. 14 credit for what she did and what she brought forward, 15 MR SAAD: Thank you. Engaging with victims and survivors, 15 because what's now in existence, I think, is what she 16 and understanding the prevalence of abuse. When you 16 brought forward -- and remember, she was doing that 17 became the chair, the relationship between victims and 17 voluntarily, in that sense. I think it was acknowledged 18 survivors in the commission was at a low ebb. 18 that it would be better to have an advisory board which 19 A. Yes. 19 wasn't simply made up of survivors and victims' 20 Q. Trust, you felt, was a key issue, and Mr Child set up 20 representatives, maybe individual survivors and victims, 21 a subgroup of the commission made up of victims and 21 but also people with expertise in the field of abuse. 22 survivors to advise the commission; is that right? 22 Q. In terms of the church's understanding of prevalence of 23 A. Yes. 23 abuse, that was gathered through CSAS statistics, and 24 Q. But that was undermined when the Bishop of Portsmouth 24 you published those statistics in the annual report? 25 challenged a civil claim of child sexual abuse on the 25 A. Yes.

Page 47 Page 48 12 (Pages 45 to 48) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 Q. You also commissioned the Bullivant Report to do an 1 the -- 2 analysis of ten years of statistics; is that right? 2 A. It's an article. I was asked by the editor of the 3 A. Yes. 3 Catholic Herald if I would write an article about it. 4 Q. It showed that, in that decade, 50 priests had been 4 Q. So the phrase "get it" is not a quote that you provided? 5 removed from ministry in that period? 5 A. No, but -- 6 A. Yes. 6 Q. Is it one that you agree with? 7 Q. You say the reports were not always available on diocese 7 A. Yes, in the sense that, very often, you will hear 8 websites, and it was a struggle to get safeguarding 8 survivors and victims and people who support them saying 9 links on their websites at all? 9 that the church, bishops, religious leaders, some 10 A. Yes. I think it's much better now. Certainly, when 10 bishops, some religious leaders, they just don't get it. 11 I became chair, one of the ongoing issues that my PA, 11 Q. The final document I'd like to bring up on screen for 12 Rose Anderson, raised was that, you know, there were 12 you, Mr Sullivan, is an article in the Telegraph, 13 still dioceses you could find no reference to 13 INQ004711. It is dated November 13, and I'd like to go 14 safeguarding. I doubt if that would be the case now. 14 to page 2 of that document, please. You are asked about 15 Q. Could I ask, please, that INQ004653 is brought up on 15 mandatory reporting, and you say -- it says: 16 screen. This is a letter that you wrote to the Catholic 16 "Danny Sullivan, chairman of the NCSC, said: 'the 17 Herald in October last year. I really just want to deal 17 Catholic Church in England and Wales has been following 18 with the title of it: 18 the principle of mandatory reporting for some time and 19 "I helped oversee safeguarding in England and Wales. 19 that is why we would have no problem with such 20 I wonder if some bishops 'get it'." 20 a provision being enshrined in law'." 21 A. Can I point out that's the Catholic Herald's phrase, not 21 Do you still remain of that view? 22 mine. 22 A. Yes, and it would be my wish that this inquiry would 23 Q. I see. 23 recommend mandatory reporting. I was particularly, 24 A. And it is an article, not a letter. 24 having worked most of my career in education, 25 Q. I beg your pardon, it is an article that you wrote in 25 disappointed to see the head teachers were against it

Page 49 Page 50

1 because it would cause them administrative work. 1 a failing of the inquiry. If any group of survivors and 2 I think there should be mandatory reporting. 2 victims could help you understand the church, they 3 I did an interview with Panorama in my time as chair 3 could. 4 and I was asked that question directly and I said yes, 4 Q. There are a number of Comboni survivors who are core 5 unreservedly. 5 participants? 6 Q. That leads me to my final question to you, Mr Sullivan: 6 A. They are now. Good. The second point I would make is, 7 are there any other proposals that you would ask the 7 my end statement about external monitoring and 8 inquiry to consider, either for the NCSC or for the 8 responsibility for safeguarding, if the church continues 9 Catholic Church, or broadly? 9 to resource safeguarding, that's because the church 10 A. I think I would like to make two points. I would like 10 needs to show humility in what it's got wrong, and it 11 the inquiry to reflect on that this is the first 11 needs to show humility in going forward, and it has to 12 opportunity that the victims and survivors of the 12 show humility that it's not yet ready to be trusted. 13 Comboni Order have had to be really publicly heard. In 13 I think there is a very significant example of that. 14 their time, they have communicated with 14 Three weeks ago, Cardinal Peter Turkson, who is 15 Archbishop Scicluna, who has safeguarding responsibility 15 a senior cardinal in Rome often named as a future Pope, 16 for the Pope, the Committee for the Protection of Minors 16 stated publicly that it was time for the church to move 17 at the Vatican, Cardinal Nichols, who certainly took 17 on from the abuse issue. I wonder what victims and 18 their document to the Congregation of the Doctrine of 18 survivors will make of that statement. He then 19 the Faith, but nothing happened for two years. They 19 reinforced that by saying how disappointed he was when 20 have been promised responses and then ultimately been 20 the Pope visited Ireland and went to four large 21 met by silence, and I think it's striking that it's 21 gatherings, that at each of those gatherings, Archbishop 22 taken a secular body to allow those victims and 22 Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin, first of all, in 23 survivors to be heard. 23 front of the Pope, apologised to the people in front of 24 I understand they weren't given core participant 24 him for the abuse that was committed by clergy and 25 status. Now, if that's the case, I think that's 25 religious in Ireland, and Cardinal Turkson criticised

Page 51 Page 52 13 (Pages 49 to 52) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 him and said, "You apologised once. Why did you 1 Q. Dealing with your background first, you had a career in 2 apologise four times? There was no need". If that's 2 the Royal Navy, you worked at a senior level in health, 3 still the level of understanding of a senior cardinal in 3 local government, the criminal justice system and the 4 the Catholic Church, then it cannot yet be trusted to 4 voluntary sector. Specifically, you were the CEO of 5 independently oversee safeguarding. 5 a Derbyshire-based charity, SV2, supporting victims of 6 MR SAAD: Those are all the questions I have, chair. Do you 6 sexual abuse, and you held that role between 2012 and 7 have any questions for this witness? 7 2016; is that right? 8 THE CHAIR: No. We have no questions. Thank you very much, 8 A. Yes. 9 Mr Sullivan. 9 Q. You were the trustee of a Survivors Trust? 10 (The witness withdrew) 10 A. I was, yes. 11 MR SAAD: I ask that the morning break is taken now, chair. 11 Q. You were the director of strategy at the Nottingham 12 THE CHAIR: Yes, we will return at 11.50 am. 12 Crime and Drugs Partnership responsible for 13 (11.37 am) 13 commissioning services for victims and survivors of 14 (A short break) 14 sexual violence, and you have high-level experience in 15 (11.53 am) 15 developing strategy in order to effect change; is that 16 MR SAAD: Chair, the next witness today is Stephen Spear, 16 right? 17 and his statement is in volume 2 of your bundles. May 17 A. That's correct. 18 the witness be sworn, please? 18 Q. During your tenure, you only missed one meeting, that 19 MR STEPHEN SPEAR (sworn) 19 being in June 2017, at the NCSC? 20 Examination by MR SAAD 20 A. Yes. Unfortunately, a critical one. 21 MR SAAD: Your name, please? 21 Q. Dealing with your experience on the NCSC, do you believe 22 A. Is Stephen Spear. 22 that the NCSC acts as a strategic body? If it assists 23 Q. You were a lay member of the NCSC from June 2016 up 23 you, I'm looking at paragraph 7 of your statement, which 24 until July 2019? 24 is on the second page. 25 A. That's correct. 25 A. No, it's not strategic in the sense I understand

Page 53 Page 54

1 "strategy", in that there is no coherent framework for 1 prevalence. You know, the statements of the Popes are 2 making decisions. There is no common purpose, there is 2 then not translated down through the organisation in any 3 no sense about what you are trying to achieve. You can 3 way. You can view the Pope, I think, as the chief exec, 4 see from the corporate statement that it tends to blow 4 and you would expect that to happen. 5 in the wind, it reacts to changes in legislation, things 5 Q. So there is no estimate of the number of abusing priests 6 are brought to its attention. It doesn't get ahead of 6 in the Catholic Church in England and Wales; is that 7 the game. It doesn't determine what it needs to 7 right? 8 achieve, it doesn't set itself any achievements. 8 A. When I asked the question in my induction of their 9 Q. By "corporate statement", that's a witness statement 9 estimates of the number of abusing priests, I was told 10 provided by Christopher Pearson the current chair of the 10 that they take the last year's report of numbers and 11 NCSC and we will be hearing from him later today. But 11 double it. 12 you believe, do you, the commission is reactive rather 12 Q. Say that again, please? 13 than proactive, and it deals with issues as they arise 13 A. They take the numbers of reports from the previous year 14 as opposed to setting the agenda itself? 14 and double it and that's their estimate. 15 A. Absolutely. 15 Q. That's the way they gauge prevalence? 16 Q. Do you believe the NCSC has strategic objectives that 16 A. Yes. 17 it's identified? 17 Q. In your time on the NCSC, have you seen any evidence 18 A. It has no, as I see it, any strategic objectives. And 18 that it systematically monitors or enforces compliance 19 I can't sense -- and reinforced by the earlier 19 with safeguarding policies and procedures? 20 testimony, no sense of common purpose across the piece. 20 A. I've seen none at all. The policy is put out, but there 21 Q. Do you say that the last three Popes have stated there 21 is no, then, plan to review or establish whether it's 22 is no place for abusing priests within the church; 22 achieved what it set out to achieve. 23 however, this has not been translated, you believe, into 23 Q. Some decisions are made, are they, by the chair and the 24 a strategic objective? 24 vice-chairs only, and you give an example in paragraph 9 25 A. No, and I address that in the paper I produced around 25 of your statement about the level of funding for the

Page 55 Page 56 14 (Pages 53 to 56) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 Safer Spaces Project. Is it right that there is 1 a discussion about Cumberlege within my time there. We 2 a decision to fund it for two years only? 2 had one report. But I decided to investigate the 3 A. That's my understanding. The level of funding -- the 3 minutes and papers that were available to me at the time 4 funding that's been guaranteed is for two years only, 4 to see if I could establish and see a pattern of 5 and when I challenged that at the meeting, NCSC meeting, 5 implementation in a sensible way. I couldn't find 6 I was told a decision has already been made, but it 6 anything in the minutes other than the one I've put in 7 hadn't been made by the NCSC, it had been made by 7 my statement, which are at (a) through to (g), I think. 8 somebody else. But who that is, I don't know. But 8 Q. Yes. You cite a number of minutes in your statement. 9 I presume it would be the chairs, vice-chairs, in 9 July 2008, September 2009, two in 2010, 2011 and 2013. 10 negotiation with the conferences. 10 All of them predating your tenure? 11 Q. So you attended an NCSC meeting. You were told, "This 11 A. Yes. 12 is how the project will be funded". You expressed your 12 Q. But there was a schedule which was produced 13 disagreement with that decision. But, by that point, it 13 in March 2013 -- 14 was a fait accompli, effectively? 14 A. Yes. 15 A. And that's a very common experience. 15 Q. -- that was recirculated in 2017, which was during your 16 Q. At the NCSC you felt that a number of decisions were -- 16 tenure? 17 you were told about the decisions rather than being part 17 A. That was when I requested that we had an update on 18 of the decision making? 18 Cumberlege to prepare us for this inquiry. 19 A. Absolutely, yes. 19 Q. I see. So the recirculation of it was upon your 20 Q. Talking about the implementation of Cumberlege, and I'm 20 request -- 21 looking at paragraphs 10 to 15 now of your statement, 21 A. Yes. 22 starting at paragraph 10, which is on the second page, 22 Q. -- in the context of this inquiry? 23 had you seen any evidence of an approach to the 23 A. Yes. 24 implementation of the recommendations? 24 Q. I want to look, please, at CHC001926. If it assists 25 A. I've not -- personally, there was no -- I instigated 25 you, chair, the hard copy is behind tab 11 in your

Page 57 Page 58

1 bundle. 1 Can you help us with that, "CRC"? 2 This is the schedule, is it, of the Cumberlege 2 A. No, sorry. 3 recommendations, their current status, and action 3 Q. "Draft 'Integrity in Ministry' was to be circulated for 4 required, if any. This was the document produced, you 4 consultation during 2012. However, consultation did not 5 believe, in March 2013, but we can see updated, current 5 take place. The Bishops' Conference produced the 6 status there, 19 February 2017; is that right? 6 documentation for clergy -- may be possible to include 7 A. That's correct, yes. 7 religious later." 8 Q. If we look at page 1, recommendation 2: 8 The next update: 9 "The Conference of Bishops and Conference of 9 "Father Marcus O'Toole has sent first draft to 10 Religious should develop codes of conduct for all 10 Archbishop PS, Bishop JS and Charles Wookey and has had 11 clergy, non-clergy religious and those who work in the 11 a meeting on 8 February to discuss further." 12 service of the church, including volunteers. Such codes 12 Final update: 13 should not be confused with, and should be separate 13 "'Integrity in Ministry' produced by CoR. No 14 from, any 'terms and conditions' handbook for clergy or 14 similar document progressed by Bishops' Conference." 15 any other group of church workers." 15 So that is an example of a recommendation that 16 It also says "ST" in brackets. Is it right that the 16 hadn't been implemented, at least as far as the Bishops' 17 Cumberlege Report advised on timeframes for which 17 Conference was concerned? 18 recommendations should be implemented? 18 A. For sure. 19 A. ST was anticipated within 12 months, I think. 19 Q. On the same point, if we go to page 16 of this document, 20 Q. From the acceptance of the report, she advised this 20 please, the final page of it, we can look at 21 recommendation should be implemented within 12 months? 21 recommendation 72: 22 A. Yes. 22 "The Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, in 23 Q. Here we are in 2017. We look at the current status. 23 consultation with the Conference of Religious, should 24 These are updates, are they? So the first was: 24 make the appropriate decreta generalia and secure 25 "Discussion commenced in the department CRC." 25 canonical recognitio of them ... so that there will be

Page 59 Page 60 15 (Pages 57 to 60) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 a special territorial law for England and Wales ..." 1 Q. What was it about the report that led to 2 This is the general decree recommendation to give 2 recommendation 72 being looked at again; do you know? 3 key safeguarding procedures the status of Canon law; is 3 A. I don't know, but, you know, if it was the proper 4 that right? 4 recommendation 12 years ago, and they considered it to 5 A. That's correct. 5 be the proper course of events last year, then what 6 Q. In the column that would be "Current status", it's 6 happened in the intervening period? 7 blank? 7 Q. Were you able to get to the bottom of that? 8 A. It is, and this was crucial from Cumberlege. She 8 A. No. 9 recognised the problems of holding bishops to account 9 Q. There were some, you point out -- if we look at page 15 10 and saw this as a vehicle to do that. It would have 10 of the document, recommendation 66: 11 ensured, in her view, the "One Church" approach. 11 "If a person has been removed from working for the 12 Q. Did you ask about that recommendation in particular, and 12 church because of concerns about his suitability for 13 say, "Well, what's happening?" 13 work with children, this should be stated if a reference 14 A. This recommendation was further discussed in December of 14 is given for that person." 15 last year at a meeting which was chaired by -- I think, 15 Again, "ST", so within 12 months. In the "Current 16 is it Baroness O'Loan, which included, on behalf -- it 16 status" box, that's also blank. 17 was our meeting that she chaired. It was a response to 17 If we look, please, at page 12 of this document, and 18 the first report from this commission around Ampleforth. 18 recommendation 55, which is at the bottom. This was 19 Q. So a meeting was held which was chaired by Baroness 19 another point that you note, which is: 20 Nuala O'Loan, having there been a report from this 20 "If a complaint or allegation is made to a member of 21 inquiry in relation to Ampleforth and Downside; is that 21 a team responsible for safeguarding who believes that he 22 right? 22 or she is not competent to deal with the matter, either 23 A. Yes. This, then, was reinstated or discussed as a way 23 because the alleged perpetrator ..." 24 forward to start to address the issues around -- that 24 It moves on to the following page now, page 13. 25 were caught up by -- 25 I shan't read the remainder out, but the point being

Page 61 Page 62

1 made by you is that, in the "Current status" column, 1 and, if it assists you, I'm looking at paragraph 16 of 2 Mr Spear, it says "Normally followed"? 2 your statement, which is on the fourth page. You 3 A. Normally followed, yes. 3 believe it has minimal resources and, in 2017, it 4 Q. What was the point you were making on that? 4 received approximately £64,000 and spent £55,000 of it. 5 A. Well, it's either followed or it's not followed. It 5 You also say at the end of that paragraph: 6 can't be "Normally followed". 6 "The NCSC has no dedicated professional staff to 7 Q. Did you feel that there was a definition of the term 7 advise it or carry out agreed actions, relying solely on 8 "implemented"? 8 the goodwill of its members." 9 A. No, not from my point of view, but from previous 9 So putting pounds and pennies to one side, the point 10 experience, that implementation would, again, entail 10 you would like to raise is that there needs to be 11 review and making sure that happened and it achieved 11 professional staff running or being there on 12 what it set out to achieve and was continuing to happen 12 a day-to-day basis? 13 as well, if necessary. There's no evidence of that 13 A. Absolutely. If you look at the -- as I read Cumberlege, 14 within this documentation. It is just a statement of, 14 the whole point of CSAS and the commission was to split 15 you know, it's in this Code of Practice or that -- you 15 out the advisory role and the implementation of policy 16 know, that guideline. 16 and protocols and the training for that to CSAS and 17 Q. Did you raise that point? 17 divorce it from the policing role, which was given to 18 A. The specifics, no, not within the meeting. 18 NCSC. So, therefore, there was a split. You know, if 19 Q. Why not, may I ask? 19 you look to your previous witness who talked about 20 A. Because there were too many. 20 having a secular body to oversee, that, in my view, was 21 Q. Too many issues that you had? 21 the NCSC. That was the aim of that, as far as 22 A. Too many issues to deal with in the context of that 22 Cumberlege was concerned. As that body, it should have 23 meeting. The important thing was to have a general 23 had its own staff to do its own research to be able to 24 overview of where we were with Cumberlege. 24 establish that common purpose, to be able to establish 25 Q. I want to move on to the topic of resources, please, 25 those objectives.

Page 63 Page 64 16 (Pages 61 to 64) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 Q. Is that not what CSAS does? 1 a relatively simple helpline and support service that, 2 A. Again, my reading from Cumberlege, they didn't want CSAS 2 in the normal course of events, I would have expected 3 to do that. They wanted it split out from the strategy 3 certainly within 12 months, if not within six to nine 4 to be able to deliver and encourage and advise and to 4 months, and we are still not there, after five years. 5 develop the protocols and policies in the church, not to 5 Now, the previous witness again talked about people 6 police it. That was my reading of Cumberlege. 6 who have committed suicide. That's five years when 7 Q. On the point of CSAS, NCSC does not agree or discuss the 7 people could not access a service, which is vital. 8 CSAS budget, does it? 8 Q. I will speak in the general first and then go to that 9 A. No. 9 specific example. Why, generally speaking, do you think 10 Q. Were you able to ascertain whether or not CSAS was 10 that progress is so slow? 11 adequately resourced? 11 A. I don't know. I think -- it feels to me, and it's only 12 A. We don't know the budget. So you don't know whether 12 a feeling, I can't say this as fact, but it feels to me 13 it's adequately resourced. Two of the recommendations 13 as if there's a constant negotiation going on. 14 in Cumberlege were for us to oversee that there was 14 Q. Between whom? 15 enough resource both within CSAS and within local 15 A. Between the bishops and the chair and the vice-chairs. 16 commissions, but that was never, ever done in my time on 16 We never, ever, as a commission, sat down and made 17 the commission. 17 a formal recommendation to the bishops, in my time, and 18 Q. Mr Spear, I'm looking at paragraph 18 of your statement, 18 neither did we ever receive a formal feedback from the 19 if it assists you. How would you describe the pace at 19 bishops. 20 which progress is made by the NCSC? 20 Q. So the feeling of negotiation, what's that feeling based 21 A. Well, there is normal time and there is church time, and 21 on? 22 it is very, very, very slow and laborious. I cite 22 A. For instance, just the two years' funding. Where was 23 the -- once the pastoral support service became 23 that decision made? Were the bishops ever told, you 24 Safer Spaces, you know, five years after deciding, it's 24 know, "To be credible you need to be able to commit 25 still not up and running. In essence, it is 25 fully to this new service", and two years doesn't cut

Page 65 Page 66

1 the mustard in that sense. If so, they should, again, 1 assists you, at paragraph 19 of your statement onwards. 2 have come back to us and said why it's only two years. 2 You have already touched on the fact that, during your 3 So there's no formal dialogue between the commission and 3 induction, you were told there was no agreed estimate of 4 the bishops, but there is -- it felt to me a negotiated 4 the number of abusers, and you were shocked by that? 5 dialogue between the chairs, the vice-chairs and the 5 A. Very. 6 bishops. 6 Q. As you say, you were told that they take the numbers 7 Q. And to you, as a lay member of the NCSC, were provided 7 reported in the previous year and double it. You 8 the product of that negotiation? 8 constantly made the case within the NCSC for an estimate 9 A. Absolutely. 9 of the number of those who have abused under the cover 10 Q. That's the CSAS budget. Did you ever have any oversight 10 of their relationship with the Catholic Church without 11 over the budgets given to safeguarding by any parts of 11 success? 12 the church, so the Archdiocese of Birmingham, for 12 A. Yes. 13 example? 13 Q. What was the opposition to that? 14 A. No. 14 A. Difficult to tell. I didn't sense a real appetite for 15 Q. Do you think that hindered your ability to have 15 understanding the depth of the problem. I think I heard 16 effective oversight? 16 one vice-chair say we should be looking into the future, 17 A. There was no way you could tell whether there was 17 not the past. I think there was -- whether it's a fear 18 adequate resources to deal with the problem, because you 18 or it's an unwillingness or just not understanding the 19 didn't know how many staff they had, either resourced 19 need, but, you know, you cannot address an issue unless 20 and what was their level of work, what the demands on 20 you understand the size and the nature of that issue. 21 them were, did they work differently? All those things. 21 You can't say if you've been successful in exposing the 22 There was no way of knowing that there was enough 22 number of abusing priests if you have no sense of how 23 resource in the system to deal with the issues, because 23 many that should be, and, for me, that was the start 24 we were never told what the resources were. 24 point, and to me it's also a start point if we could 25 Q. The next topic is prevalence. I'm looking, again, if it 25 have established an agreed prevalence or estimate, that

Page 67 Page 68 17 (Pages 65 to 68) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 would start to lead us down to a common purpose. 1 Q. This is one of the Bullivant analyses, is it? 2 Q. I want to take you, please, to a document -- I will put 2 A. Yes. So it was very difficult to ascertain numbers over 3 it up on screen -- CHC001715_001-002. It is item -- 3 time and, of course, this is an issue that goes over 4 page 2, please. Item 6: 4 time, people don't abuse by year, and the second key 5 "Sustaining the Gaze". 5 point, of course, is, we all know the level of 6 That's a paper you submitted to the NCSC. It says: 6 under-reporting. So relying solely on CSAS data on 7 "SS gave a brief overview and purpose, namely: 7 reporting again would give you a false impression of the 8 "to consider consistency across the USA, Australia 8 estimate. So the CSAS data, though helpful, did not 9 and Ferns and to provide an evidence-based estimate of 9 give you any sense of the size of the problem within the 10 the number of priests who have abused since 1950. 10 church. 11 "To use historical data to refine current 11 Q. It says: 12 statistical data." 12 "We now have 45 years' worth of data for England and 13 The minutes record: 13 Wales. Comparisons with other nations need to be taken 14 "There was general discussion of the need or 14 with caution. 15 purpose, and it was noted that we already do this by the 15 "The purpose should be to measure success or 16 use of CSAS data, which has been further developed and 16 positive benefits rather than measuring how many. 17 which is also reported in each annual report." 17 "Structures and measures are already in place and as 18 Pausing there, is that not right, that the CSAS data 18 a commission we are not in a policing role, but work 19 was performing the function that you were advocating? 19 alongside many other agencies which exist for support. 20 A. No, on a number of -- for a number of reasons. The CSAS 20 "We must also consider that by increasing input and 21 data which is published annually is an annual snapshot. 21 services, we will also increase reporting." 22 There is no running total. In fact, when the tenure 22 So you presented the paper and the short of it is 23 review was done, the university who did that recommended 23 that the commission disagreed with your approach? 24 to the commission that they actually establish 24 A. They did. It was quite a hostile reaction. I was 25 a running-total-type database. 25 accused by one member of writing the headlines for the

Page 69 Page 70

1 Daily Mail. But it was a genuine attempt to get on the 1 A. My understanding from Cumberlege was that we should be 2 table what we are dealing with. We go beyond numbers. 2 providing independent recommendations to those two 3 I'm not aware of any real research about the nature, you 3 conferences for them then to consider and take on. 4 know -- the extent and the nature of the abuse. Do we 4 Q. Is that what happened? 5 know whether priests become paedophiles or do 5 A. Again, I sensed it was more negotiated. But there was 6 paedophiles become priests? Because the policy reaction 6 no strategy put forward. What was taken back to those 7 to both of those would be very different. 7 conferences were reactions to other things, like we said 8 Understanding the abusing population is key to any 8 before, around incidents or changes in legislation. 9 policy and strategic direction the church needs to take. 9 There was no strategy taken. We never actually ever 10 Q. Why do you think there was hostility to what you were 10 sat -- in my time, maybe they did previously, but we 11 suggesting? 11 never sat down as two bodies with those conferences. 12 A. Maybe because it sheds light into hidden corners. 12 The relationship was through the chair and the 13 I don't know. But my past approach in trying to achieve 13 vice-chairs. 14 change is always to try and understand the problem. If 14 Q. So you weren't clear on the relationship between the 15 you don't understand the problem, you can't start to 15 NCSC and the two conferences. The chair of the NCSC, 16 address the issues. You can't have answers to questions 16 Mr Pearson, was clear in his view. He felt that the 17 if you haven't got the questions. 17 NCSC was accountable to and led by the conferences. 18 Q. Indeed, we have the paper which I am not going to -- the 18 That was a view he expressed to you, was it? 19 "Sustaining the Gaze" paper. I am not going to bring it 19 A. Yes, a view he often expressed. 20 up on screen but I will ask it is published in full: 20 Q. There is no formal communication to the conferences 21 CHC001928. 21 approved by the NCSC and there is no formal feedback 22 In terms of the next topic, the relationship between 22 from the conferences, a point you made earlier? 23 the NCSC and the two conferences, what did you 23 A. Yes. 24 understand the relationship between the NCSC and the two 24 Q. You say, as you have already described, that you felt 25 conferences to be? 25 there was a negotiation going on between the conferences

Page 71 Page 72 18 (Pages 69 to 72) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 and the more senior members of the commission. 1 your opinion? 2 So, in your view, comparing the practice to what was 2 A. It didn't inhibit me, but I'm not sure -- there were 3 envisaged by Cumberlege, did they match or not match? 3 people who were quite vocal on the commission and people 4 A. Not at all. It became a managing body for 4 who were less vocal. 5 implementation through CSAS, and that's -- you've seen 5 Q. You believe the less vocal ones, it was through -- 6 that discussed today, about the relationships between 6 because they were deferring to -- 7 CSAS and the NCSC. 7 A. Well, again ... 8 Q. Would you describe the NCSC as independent? 8 Q. You came to the end of your tenure in July this year, 9 A. I think it's difficult to be independent when many of 9 2019, and you were told that via a letter from 10 the members are actually members of those two 10 Mr Pearson, the current chair. He wrote to you on 11 conferences. 11 5 July saying that your three-year tenure had ended and 12 Q. Why? 12 it would not be extended. You replied to him. I'd like 13 A. Because the -- it didn't feel as there was -- it felt 13 to see the letter, please, on screen: INQ004685. Chair, 14 very deferential. Again, this, you know, we are 14 if it assists you, it is behind your tab 7. 15 accountable to -- 15 If we go further down there, to the paragraph 16 Q. Who was deferring to whom? 16 beginning, "You acknowledge": 17 A. The commission was deferential to the conferences. 17 "You acknowledge my knowledge and experience, but as 18 That's how it felt. I've got no evidence for that, but 18 the only member who has run a service for the victims 19 that's how it felt. We never stood up and said, "This 19 and survivors of sexual abuse ..." 20 is the advice we are going to give, regardless of 20 You mean you were the only member of the commission 21 whether it is welcome or not". That's what it felt to 21 to have done that; is that right? 22 me. As I say, I can't give evidence for that. 22 A. As I understand, yes. 23 Q. Do you feel having members of -- a bishop, for example, 23 Q. "... as chair, you have never asked me what such 24 or a member of a religious order, being on the 24 a service should look like. All my contributions to the 25 commission, did that inhibit the way you could express 25 debate with regard to the Safer Spaces proposal have

Page 73 Page 74

1 been rebuffed, mainly by you, but I am sure you know 1 "celebrate" when somebody gets caught and is found 2 best. My greatest frustration, though, is when I was 2 guilty. I think that it is out of step. It doesn't 3 told that decisions had already been made and I was too 3 understand. Most of -- society understands, I think, in 4 late to change anything even though this inconclusive 4 the main that it should be victim- and survivor-centred, 5 proposal has been under discussion for five years. Even 5 at the centre of things, but it feels to me that it's 6 now, the commission has 'approved' a proposal with no 6 not -- there's not that same balance within the 7 clarity on the nature of the support to be provided, the 7 Catholic Church that, you know, the whole issue of 8 budget or the anticipated demand. 8 repentance, you know, is a key issue, and forgiveness of 9 "I have struggled to understand why the 9 sins. So the perpetrator seems to get as much, if not 10 Catholic Church is out of step with society as a whole, 10 more, from the church than the victim does. That's why 11 and still do." 11 it is out of step. It clearly is out of step. You've 12 What do you mean by that, in the context of 12 only got to see the articles and the experiences of 13 safeguarding? 13 victims and survivors that you've heard about already. 14 A. It was in the context, really, of victims and 14 Q. You go on to say: 15 perpetrators. When we had the meeting in December with 15 "I do believe that the commission is made up of good 16 Baroness O'Loan, I was trying to get over that, in 16 people with good intentions but it seems incapable of 17 society as a whole, if a perpetrator is found guilty, 17 understanding and therefore addressing the reasons for 18 that is seen as a good thing. I think I used the word 18 the church's reputation for not dealing with sexual 19 it is "celebratory". And for people on many levels. It 19 abuse. From my managerial and secular perspective, it 20 is good that that person is no longer able to commit 20 is difficult not to see conspiracy and complacency, but 21 abuse, but, mainly, it validates also the experience of 21 I still hope that the church can identify why these 22 the person who has been abused. 22 perceptions still have currency." 23 That was met with quite an interesting response, in 23 What do you mean by "conspiracy and complacency"? 24 that they didn't want to be in a church that was pleased 24 A. When you look at the actions, it is very difficult to 25 that somebody got caught. I think I used the word 25 understand why. I think I would add to "conspiracy and

Page 75 Page 76 19 (Pages 73 to 76) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 complacency" also "competence". The church doesn't seem 1 institution. So it needs to address that. It needs to 2 to be able to understand why it needs to support victims 2 look at itself and ask itself, "Why are we in this 3 and survivors, and, again, you've heard loads of 3 situation?" But it seems incapable of doing that. 4 evidence about that. I do believe -- and that's why 4 Q. Why, do you think? 5 I say the church is made up of good people -- there has 5 A. I don't know why. I think -- because they are -- they 6 got to be an underlying reason about why that is. 6 have -- their language -- you know, you can't understand 7 Something that may be good in one sense may be causing 7 the language, you know, when they talk to each other. 8 this problem elsewhere. The church needs to be 8 They just need to sit down and try and see this from 9 self-reflective, it needs to look at itself and 9 a decent sense of humanity, that, "Why are we doing the 10 understand why it is not doing the obvious, and the 10 thing that is obviously wrong?" How can you refuse not 11 obvious is that you should be meeting and addressing the 11 to go and see a victim or survivor? You know, "Why are 12 needs of victims and survivors, which it is clearly not 12 we making these mistakes? Why are we allowing abuse to 13 doing. It needs to understand why it is not doing that, 13 continue?" I think they just need to ask themselves 14 so that it can establish a common purpose so that it 14 that question and see if there is something within the 15 can, you know, find a way of rationalising with their 15 organisation, within the teaching, within the theology 16 actions. I did put a paper together for them on that, 16 of the church that is creating this imbalance. And 17 in terms of some of the things that may underline that, 17 I did suggest that, you know, there's celebration in 18 but only from my perspective, it has no weight. 18 heaven, the prodigal son and the fatted calf, when the 19 But it was really to try again to get the church to 19 sinner repents. You always think that's about mutual 20 be reflective and to say to itself, "Why are we like 20 sin. But by definition, a child who is abused is 21 this? Why do we have these events", which are 21 completely innocent. There is nothing that I can see in 22 atrocious, you know, people destroying records of abuse 22 the Bible -- but I'm no theologian; that's why the 23 being overlooked and all the rest of it, of coverups, 23 church needs to do it, not me -- that says, "What's the 24 and the evidence is overwhelming for that. But the 24 celebration when a victim/survivor receives justice?". 25 church is a good institution. It is not an evil 25 Q. Mr Pearson responded to your letter on 24 July -- chair,

Page 77 Page 78

1 if it assists you, it is behind tab 8. The document is 1 because I was told off for not doing that in March 2017, 2 INQ004684. I'm not going to read the letter out in 2 and actually then sent an email which I turned into 3 full. It is lengthy. But if we go to page 2, please, 3 a paper which included eight suggested high-level aims. 4 just to point some points to you. The paragraph 4 Now, when I sent that paper, the reply from 5 beginning, "Similarly": 5 Chris Pearson was: 6 "Similarly, you have been involved in all of the 6 "Dear Steve, thanks for taking the time to produce 7 debate and discussion about our strategic approach 7 this document. Bernie and I were both away last 8 within the commission, but you have never actually laid 8 Thursday and Friday, so this is our first chance to 9 out to members how specifically your own proposals would 9 contact you. Our strategic plan for 2017 has already 10 differ substantially from the current strategy of the 10 been written and will be circulated with the agenda this 11 NCSC. You were involved in the lengthy discussions on 11 week. In view of this, there is no necessity for your 12 the strategic business plan which I developed and 12 document to be circulated or submitted." 13 presented to the NCSC. You could have used that as an 13 So to say that I hadn't suggested an alternative is 14 opportunity to suggest putting together a substantive 14 not true and, when I did suggest it, it was before the 15 alternative plan, but that was not forthcoming from you 15 meeting -- this is 30 May, it was a June meeting, the 16 either." 16 one I missed -- he said there was no necessity for my 17 There is a strategic business plan of the NCSC. 17 document to be submitted to the meeting. 18 Does that not satisfy you for the strategy that you were 18 Q. I think the document is, "Can England and Wales solve 19 seeking? 19 the problem of" -- not for the strategic business plan, 20 A. The statement there is not true. I said at the 20 but on the point you were making earlier about 21 beginning that the one meeting I missed was this crucial 21 reflection, "Can England and Wales solve the problem of 22 meeting when the business plan was discussed. 22 sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church?". We 23 I first sent a paper about future issues, or an 23 shan't go through that in full, but I ask it is 24 email, to Chris Pearson in September 2016. I sent a bit 24 published, INQ004686. 25 of a stream of consciousness to him and the vice-chair 25 Can I ask, please, finally, having spent three years

Page 79 Page 80 20 (Pages 77 to 80) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 on the NCSC, what do you propose its way forward should 1 possible. 2 be? What recommendations would you make? 2 MR SAAD: Those are all the questions I have for you, 3 A. Just before we leave that paper, I think the important 3 Mr Spear. Chair, do you have any questions for the 4 point is that the church hides behind its complicated 4 witness? 5 organisation. In fact, it is a very simple 5 THE CHAIR: No, we have no questions. Thank you very much, 6 organisation. It's got the Pope at the top, it's got 6 Mr Spear. 7 the bishops, it's got the priests. It's an extremely 7 A. Thank you. 8 flat organisation. It is very large, but extremely 8 (The witness withdrew) 9 flat. 9 MR SAAD: Chair, the next witness will be 10 What the church does in England and Wales is, it 10 Mr Christopher Pearson. 11 chops its little bit out of that cake and says that 11 MR CHRISTOPHER PEARSON (sworn) 12 there is no way that -- there is no hierarchy within 12 Examination by MR SAAD 13 England, but there is one. The point of that paper was 13 MR SAAD: Your name, please? 14 to say, if you look at all those issues of, why the 14 A. Christopher Pearson. 15 church is, why the -- you know, the theology and the 15 Q. You are the independent lay chair of the NCSC? 16 organisation, Canon law, that is all determined in Rome. 16 A. Yes. 17 I don't think this problem in the church will be solved 17 Q. You started that role on 3 November 2015; is that right? 18 in England and Wales. It needs to be solved in Rome. 18 A. As vice-chair. 19 That's where the initiative has got to come from and 19 Q. So you were appointing as acting lay chair 20 that's where it's got to be dealt with. That's where 20 from July 2015? 21 the issues are. 21 A. Yes. 22 There is no way, at the end of the day, this little 22 Q. You say that that role is a joint appointment by the 23 segment of the church will be able to solve itself when 23 President of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England 24 it is within that big, wider, actually relatively simple 24 and Wales and the President of the Conference of 25 organisation but they try to make it as difficult as 25 Religious on recommendation from an interview panel

Page 81 Page 82

1 comprising the vice-chairs of the NCSC. So a lay 1 A. Well, the position I was offered and accepted in terms 2 vice-chair, bishop and religious and the General 2 of the chair of NCSC had already been well established, 3 Secretary of the Bishops' Conference. Is that right? 3 so I moved into that position on the basis it was 4 A. The general secretary wasn't there, no. 4 a layperson who would be seen as an independent chair. 5 Q. Wasn't there during your interview? 5 Q. Just dealing with your background, your professional 6 A. No. 6 background is in social work, which was 40 years' 7 Q. Appointment is for a period of three years -- 7 experience across children's and adults services, taking 8 A. Sorry, can I just -- just repeat the question again as 8 a lead in safeguarding adults in a strategic managerial 9 to general secretary? 9 role. You also worked, at least at the time of your 10 Q. He is usually a member of the interviewing panel for 10 statement, in 2017, part time at the NHS in Wales? 11 prospective candidates for your role? 11 A. Yes, and still do. 12 A. Yes, "General Secretary for Religious", did you say? 12 Q. Moving on to a description of the NCSC, and I'm looking, 13 Q. Bishops' Conference. 13 if it assists you, Mr Pearson, at the first statement 14 A. Not Bishops' Conference. It was the Conference of 14 you provided, dated 20 October 2017. It is behind your 15 Religious. 15 tab A/1. I will take you first, please, to 16 Q. Very well. All right. Appointment is for a period of 16 paragraph 1.4, which is on the second page of it. 17 three years, but that can be renewed by mutual agreement 17 It is a commission responsible for setting the 18 for a further three years? 18 strategic direction of safeguarding policy and 19 A. That's correct. Sorry, could I just add, the Vice-Chair 19 monitoring compliance and it is mandated and funded by 20 for Bishops' Conference was at interview. 20 the Bishops' Conference and the CoR to ensure that 21 Q. You say the position of lay chair is within 21 standards are met and policies implemented. Would you 22 a nonemployment status so as to maintain the function of 22 agree with that? 23 independence? 23 A. Yes. 24 A. Yes. 24 Q. It was set up, the NCSC, in July 2008, following the 25 Q. What do you mean by that? 25 recommendation of the Cumberlege Report, which disbanded

Page 83 Page 84 21 (Pages 81 to 84) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 COPCA, which we have heard about in previous case 1 case, the work that had already been done in preparation 2 studies, and created in its place the NCSC and CSAS? 2 for setting up the Survivors Advisory Panel, the 3 A. That's correct. 3 importance of having survivors as being central to the 4 Q. In practical terms, as experts on safeguarding -- I'm 4 work of both NCSC and CSAS, and to support the NCSC, 5 looking at the bottom of your page 2 -- the NCSC, 5 which was the whole essence of why it was created, to 6 together with CSAS, sets out the strategic direction of 6 ensure that the voice of victims and survivors would be 7 the church's development of, and compliance with, 7 part of the whole process and, having then set that out, 8 safeguarding arrangements and they are then presented to 8 it was fully accepted by Bishops' Conference. There was 9 the two conferences. So when an initiative requires 9 not a lengthy discussion. It had all previously gone to 10 funding, you produce a report on the proposal, which 10 the Bishops' Standing Committee for approval, and it was 11 includes costings; is that right? 11 they who also approved the -- to recommend to the 12 A. That's correct. 12 Bishops' Conference, which is what I did, to say, "This 13 Q. By way of an example, in 2016, you presented a report on 13 budget needs supporting", and we needed to make sure (a) 14 the development of the Survivors Advisory Panel, the 14 that there was funding, because, at some point, the 15 SAP, and that had been, up to that point, funded by an 15 underspend would go, and that would put the whole 16 existing budget underspend, but your view was it 16 process under threat. So I wanted to make sure that 17 couldn't be sustained in that way, so you asked for 17 there was sufficient budget, and that was approved. 18 additional funding, you required that uplift. Am 18 Q. Similarly, in 2016, you pointed out that the NCSC had 19 I right in saying that's a proposal that you prepared, 19 not had an uplift in budget since 2008, and so you asked 20 produced to the two conferences, and in that example, 20 for an uplift, and that, too, was approved? 21 that was approved? 21 A. Yes, it was. 22 A. Yes. 22 Q. You say that during the course of these presentations, 23 Q. Can you give us an idea of how easily that proposal was 23 whilst there is often dialogue, you have had no 24 approved? 24 experience of a major disagreement or refusal to support 25 A. Well, I set out in the business proposal, a business 25 a proposal?

Page 85 Page 86

1 A. Not during my tenure, no. 1 Catholic Church, in England and Wales, in terms of 2 Q. Albeit, of course, sometimes further clarification might 2 safeguarding, is legislation has changed, for instance. 3 be requested and subsequently presented? 3 Whether or not the initial proposal from Cumberlege to 4 A. Yes. 4 separate the operational arm from the strategic arm 5 Q. Dealing with the structure, role and responsibility of 5 still applies is a question in my mind, and that's 6 the NCSC, you say the Cumberlege Report felt that COPCA 6 already within the debate within the NCSC to consider 7 reporting straight to the Bishops' Conference meant that 7 a systematic review of safeguarding in the 8 there was only one layer of scrutiny by the bishops and 8 Catholic Church, and that sits within the proposals we 9 one less forum for debating the strategic development of 9 are putting forward to Bishops' Conference from their 10 safeguarding policy, and that was the context within 10 recommendation to review safeguarding, and that will be 11 which the NCSC/CSAS structure was suggested and, you 11 part and parcel of the whole process. 12 say, thereby producing independence that was credible 12 Q. That was the review that was announced in October last 13 and greater buy-in throughout the church. 13 year; is that right? 14 In terms of the phrase "buy-in", do you still feel 14 A. It was the review from September from Bishops' 15 that the concept of safeguarding is something that still 15 Conference to ask that the NCSC commission a review of 16 needs to be sold to parts of the church? 16 safeguarding, and we have been working on that 17 A. I think that there are significant challenges, in terms 17 since December, and just appointed somebody, and 18 of safeguarding. The landscape of safeguarding has 18 currently drafting -- finalising the draft of terms of 19 changed significantly since Cumberlege. The problem 19 reference. 20 with having recommendations that have existed for quite 20 Q. Announced towards the end of last year, you are now in 21 some time also presents a challenge, because there may 21 the process of drafting terms of reference. Why has it 22 well be situations that arise where, in fact, you can't 22 taken the best part of this year to get to that stage? 23 even meet recommendations because they were established 23 A. Because we needed to appoint -- first of all, we scoped 24 ten years ago or more. 24 out what -- the context of what needed to be considered, 25 One of the challenges with the church, 25 and that was done in the December 2018 meeting, which

Page 87 Page 88 22 (Pages 85 to 88) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 was facilitated by Baroness O'Loan. From that scoping 1 representatives. 2 exercise, myself and vice-chairs, as well as 2 In terms of the Safeguarding Commissions, the box to 3 Colette Limbrick from CSAS, were tasked by the NCSC to 3 the right of that says "Independently chaired but 4 put that together as a scope, which we did. We then -- 4 accountable to bishop and trustees of the diocese or 5 I then had to consider how we then engaged somebody to 5 leaders and trustees of the religious congregations. 6 take on the review, which would be independent, and so 6 Leads strategic direction of safeguarding, provides 7 I took on the responsibility of considering interested 7 independent oversight, scrutiny, advice and guidance." 8 parties who may well be able to do that. 8 We have heard evidence from a safeguarding 9 Q. Just to help us picture the structure, if we could go, 9 coordinator about whether or not a press statement ought 10 please, to NCS000002_002, you see there NCSC is at the 10 to be issued and there was disagreement between the 11 top in line with the box, "Mandated by the two 11 commission and the trustees of that particular diocese, 12 conferences responsible for setting strategic direction, 12 and the safeguarding coordinator was asked, "If there 13 implementing policy and monitoring standards. The 13 was a disagreement, why doesn't the commission simply 14 Survivor Advisory Panel is a subgroup of the NCSC." 14 issue a press statement itself?", to which the answer 15 Is that right? 15 was that the Safeguarding Commission needed the 16 A. That's correct. 16 confidence of the bishop and to do something at odds 17 Q. We will come on to that in more detail later. The 17 with the bishop would have undermined that confidence. 18 Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service sits beneath the 18 Do you believe, in your experience, that the 19 NCSC, and CaTEW. There is a dashed line from there to 19 Safeguarding Commission is independent? 20 CSAS. Is it still right that CSAS is funded by the 20 A. Within a diocesan context? 21 trust and the director of CSAS is effectively line 21 Q. Yes. 22 managed by the trust? Is that correct? 22 A. Well, it is, because there are professionals who are not 23 A. Yes. 23 necessarily connected to the Catholic Church. So 24 Q. Beneath CSAS we have the Safeguarding Commissions, 24 Safeguarding Commissions will have a variety of people 25 safeguarding coordinators, parish safeguarding 25 from various professions. So you will have police

Page 89 Page 90

1 officers, you will have social workers, nurses, and any 1 totally independent because it's reliant upon funding, 2 other professionals who are party to that whole debate. 2 and that's a challenge, I think, in any organisation 3 So I think there is, within a commission, the -- in 3 where it seems independent. So, for instance, advocacy 4 terms of its content and personnel, to be able to 4 services would be funded by, say, a local authority, 5 challenge. That's really important because if a bishop 5 which I'm familiar with, but they're still independent. 6 is taking an action that is not in line with 6 So I just wanted to make the point to those who were 7 safeguarding and safeguarding procedures, it's their 7 present at the meeting, because there were people from 8 responsibility to say so. 8 a publishing company who didn't understand some of the 9 Q. Do you feel the NCSC is independent? 9 aspects of the Catholic Church and it was in that 10 A. Yes. 10 context. 11 Q. Can I just take you, please, to CHC001772_001. At the 11 Clearly when the minutes are put together, they 12 bottom of that -- these are minutes of a communications 12 don't fully express the whole content, and maybe 13 subgroup on 6 July 2017. You chaired the meeting. The 13 I should have reviewed these minutes to say, "Well, this 14 second bullet point up from the bottom of that page, one 14 needs to be put in context", but I didn't. 15 of the suggestions: 15 Q. But do you feel the fact that you are funded by the 16 "Strengthen the statement of independence (CP 16 Bishops' Conference has in any way hindered your 17 however feels we are not truly independent, as we are 17 objectives? 18 funded by the Bishops' Conference)." 18 A. No. The only time that would be brought into question, 19 How does that square with your view that the NCSC is 19 if they refused to fund a particular aspect that we 20 independent? 20 wanted to put in place. 21 A. This needs to be seen in context. This was a discussion 21 Q. You feel that the NCSC is performing the function it is 22 around the production of a website for the NCSC, and 22 being asked to do, and in 2015 -- I'm looking, if it 23 there was a discussion around, how do we express -- 23 helps you, at paragraph 2.11 of your statement, which is 24 rather than just saying "independent", how do we express 24 on page 6. In the 2015 annual report, the NCSC 25 that in context? And I raised the point that it's not 25 announced its intention to prioritise and develop a more

Page 91 Page 92 23 (Pages 89 to 92) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 sensitive and pastoral response to victims and survivors 1 A. Yes. 2 of abuse and, to ensure that the work of the NCSC is 2 Q. Finally before we break, Mr Spear said that there may be 3 informed by victim and survivor experience and 3 deference to others. Do you ever feel that there is 4 expertise, the commission set up a Survivors Advisory 4 a deferential approach by some members of the commission 5 Panel. So that's the context within which the subgroup 5 to the church? 6 that we saw on the chart a moment ago was created? 6 A. Certainly not deference. I think there are times in any 7 A. Yes. 7 group, any committee or, in this case, a commission, 8 Q. Within the membership of the NCSC, there is a bishop, 8 where some people speak and some people don't. My 9 a member of the CoR, there's vice-chairs, there's a lay 9 responsibility, as chair, is to enable those who don't 10 vice-chair -- is that Rachel O'Driscoll? 10 say very much to try to do so. But I don't get any 11 A. That's correct, yes. 11 sense of deference by anybody at all. In fact, one of 12 Q. As well as two representatives, each from the Bishops' 12 the central points that, when I came to the commission, 13 Conference and the CoR, and the General Secretary of the 13 is we do not use titles within the commission. So 14 CoR; is that right? 14 whether somebody is bishop or not, people's Christian 15 A. Sorry, just repeat that again? 15 names are used, there is no title. I think that's an 16 Q. I'm looking at paragraph 2.12 of your statement, if this 16 example of not having deference. 17 assists you. Within the membership there is a bishop, 17 MR SAAD: Chair, would that be an appropriate moment for the 18 a member of the CoR as vice-chairs, there's a lay chair 18 lunch break? 19 as well, as well as two representatives each from the 19 THE CHAIR: Yes, we will return at 2.00 pm. Thank you. 20 Bishops' Conference and CoR and the General Secretary of 20 (1.00 pm) 21 the CoR? 21 (The short adjournment) 22 A. Yes, that's correct. 22 (2.00 pm) 23 Q. Their membership within the NCSC brings particular 23 MR SAAD: Mr Pearson, as NCSC chair, you attend the plenary 24 expertise and experience and ensures timely consultation 24 meetings of the Bishops' Conference at least once 25 in dealing with church safeguarding matters? 25 a year -- is that right? --

Page 93 Page 94

1 A. That's correct, yes. 1 Q. So the job description, if you like, would say one day 2 Q. -- in addition to any other time that you are asked to 2 a week, but in practice it's rather more than that? 3 attend by them. How many times has that occurred, that 3 A. A lot more. 4 they have asked you to come more than the once a year? 4 Q. In addition to the meetings we have already described, 5 A. Since I've been in position as chair, certainly every 5 you correspond with conferences, religious leaders, CSAS 6 year. 6 of course -- 7 Q. You've been asked to go -- 7 A. Yes. 8 A. Once every year. 8 Q. -- Safeguarding Commission chairs and safeguarding 9 Q. Once every year. 9 coordinators? 10 A. Yes, sometimes twice. I can't remember the exact times, 10 A. Yes. 11 but ... 11 Q. Together with the director of CSAS, you work to 12 Q. And at the Conference of Religious Executive Advisory, 12 contribute to safeguarding learning and development 13 at least twice a year; is that right? 13 opportunities for bishops and religious leaders on 14 A. No. 14 a three-year cycle? 15 Q. That's not right? 15 A. That's correct. 16 A. No, I haven't been there for about two years. 16 Q. Of course, you are also in contact with the Bishops' 17 Q. The NCSC itself, how often does that meet? 17 Conference General Secretary if the need arises? 18 A. It meets four times a year in terms of meetings, and it 18 A. If so arises, yes. 19 then has a variety of subgroups which also meet. 19 Q. Can I just take you, please, to a couple of documents, 20 Q. How many days a week do you spend on being the chair of 20 the first being CHC001947. Chair, if it assists you, 21 the NCSC? 21 this is behind tab 14 of your bundle. These are minutes 22 A. It's supposed to be one day a week. In 2018, I actually 22 of an NCSC meeting on 5 March this year which you 23 kept a workload record. Ordinarily, every month, I'd be 23 chaired. I want to go first, please, to page 2. The 24 doing 30 hours. In the last 18 months, in that period, 24 third bullet point down from the top, just dealing with 25 it went up to 70 to 95 hours a month. 25 the remit of the NCSC:

Page 95 Page 96 24 (Pages 93 to 96) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 "It was agreed that the redress scheme is outside 1 Was that a frustration you had? 2 the remit of the NCSC -- will await to see what IICSA 2 A. It was, yes, and it was a collective view from the 3 recommends in the summer and respond accordingly." 3 commission. The issue here, if I can put it in context, 4 Can you help us with why the redress scheme would 4 was, I was sent part of -- a paragraph of this letter, 5 not be in the remit of NCSC? 5 and in order to understand the whole context, I asked 6 A. This was following a discussion we had from 6 for the letter in its totality, and that took some 7 a development day, where we had a presentation from 7 considerable time to come to me. 8 a lawyer, independent lawyer, who gave an overview of 8 Q. So this is a letter that was expressing concerns that 9 inquiries -- the Royal Commission in Australia, in 9 had been sent to bishop Terry Drainey, who is the bishop 10 Ireland, the one in Northern Ireland -- and from that 10 of Middlesbrough; is that right? 11 overview, the issue of redress was raised and that we 11 A. Yes. 12 would need to consider it, but it wasn't an issue that 12 Q. Who had sent the letter to him? 13 lay directly with the NCSC. 13 A. It came from the Local Safeguarding Board for Children 14 The comment made within that was that we would have 14 for that area, for Ampleforth area. 15 to be party to, and give an opinion upon, the redress 15 Q. From the Ampleforth area, who'd sent it direct to the 16 scheme, but it wouldn't be for us to put it in place. 16 bishop? 17 Q. Whilst we are looking at these minutes, could we go to 17 A. Yes. 18 page 3 of them and item 11. I want to deal, really, 18 Q. You wanted to see a full copy of it? 19 with the final sentence. It's discussing concerns about 19 A. Yes. 20 safeguarding at Ampleforth. But the final sentence, 20 Q. And to set up a meeting with the Abbot President of the 21 really, is the one I want to focus on: 21 EBC to discuss the views and how the IICSA issues were 22 "Some frustration was expressed about the ability of 22 being addressed? 23 NCSC/CSAS to take proactive action where there were 23 A. That's correct. 24 obvious problems and it was recognised that the 24 Q. At the end of that section, you say: 25 commission needed to find ways of being more assertive." 25 "... it was recognised that the commission needed to

Page 97 Page 98

1 find ways of being more assertive." 1 policy -- what redress does the NCSC have?" 2 That was March this year. Have you, in the last few 2 I'm not going to take you through all of the bullet 3 months, thought of ways of being more assertive? 3 points here, but can I pick a few and ask for your 4 A. I actually went to Ampleforth with Colette Limbrick, the 4 comment. The second bullet point down under the "Issues 5 director of CSAS, and also, as part of that, there was 5 were" heading: 6 a teleconference set up with Elizabeth Manero, who is 6 "Canon law and whether clergy must follow policy - 7 a lay member on the NCSC, to have a full and frank 7 it was noted that clergy are required to follow the 8 discussion with the members of the Safeguarding 8 specific wishes of their bishop. If the policies are 9 Commission for Ampleforth. 9 adopted by trustees, then there is a civil requirement 10 Q. Do you feel that when you approach any part of the 10 to follow policies. The problem until recently was that 11 church in that way, that the fact that you're chair of 11 the need for trustees to adopt the policies had not been 12 the NCSC carries with it the weight that's required to 12 understood. They must be signed off by the NCSC, the 13 go into a meeting like that? 13 Canon Law Society, and insurers before going to the 14 A. I can only say, from this particular context, the 14 trustee body. This process has now started." 15 invitation was given to us to meet with them. 15 Which policies are being spoken about here? 16 Q. I want to go, please, to CHC001738. Chair, it's behind 16 A. These are policies and procedures that have been put 17 your tab 21. These were notes of the meeting held in 17 together and agreed by -- presented by CSAS to the NCSC. 18 March 2016 on an NCSC away-day. I want to go first, 18 The NCSC then agrees that with the Conference of Bishops 19 please, to page 4 of that document. The role of the 19 and Conference of Religious. 20 NCSC and its objectives. The questions were being posed 20 Q. They need to be signed off as well by the Canon Law 21 in the discussion: 21 Society and insurers -- is that right? -- before they go 22 "Where does the authority of the NCSC lie? 22 to the trustees? 23 "What powers does the NCSC have in relation to its 23 A. I'm not sure about the Canon Law Society. This was part 24 authority? 24 of a debate, so the accuracy of whether or not it needed 25 "What would happen if a diocese refused to follow 25 to go to the Canon Law Society, I'm not sure. But

Page 99 Page 100 25 (Pages 97 to 100) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 certainly the trustees of each diocese and religious 1 A. I think the development of putting in place policy and 2 order, if that was independent. 2 procedures that needed to be reviewed substantially when 3 Q. A few bullet points down: 3 I came into the position of chair and Colette Limbrick, 4 "There would be pressure on a bishop because of the 4 who is director of CSAS came in at the same time, and it 5 'One Church' approach." 5 was clear there was a -- the electronic records of 6 Can you help us with what that means? 6 policy and procedures was not easy to follow. There was 7 A. I think, in terms of the very fact that we have policy 7 a manual. That when you tried to link to one part, it 8 and procedures that are aimed at a "One Church" 8 didn't always connect to the right part, so you'd 9 approach, we don't have people creating their own, and 9 actually be sent somewhere else. 10 so any bishop or religious congregation that stepped 10 Q. But in terms of knowing whether or not a Safeguarding 11 outside of the procedures, wanted to create their own, 11 Commission for an archdiocese was actually following the 12 would be challenged, I think, in terms of not following 12 policies? 13 a "One Church" approach which had been agreed within the 13 A. Yes, I understand that. I'm just trying to put in 14 Conference of Bishops and Religious and had been signed 14 context that you have to review the policy and 15 off by trustees. 15 procedures in the first place to make sure they are fit 16 Q. Onto the next page, please, page 5, the third bullet 16 for purpose, and that's the work that was done. This 17 point from the bottom in the section that's just been 17 also occurred at -- this meeting also occurred at that 18 magnified: 18 time when we were in the process of finishing that off. 19 "We don't have good quality information to allow us 19 Q. So are you able to monitor whether or not any part of 20 to know that policies are not being followed -- but 20 the church was complying with your procedures? 21 there is a process in place which may or may not work." 21 A. The NCSC doesn't directly monitor; it would come through 22 Do you agree that -- obviously this is in 2016. The 22 CSAS as to whether issues are raised as to whether 23 position now. Do you believe that now you have good 23 somebody is following the policy and procedures. 24 quality information to know if policies are being 24 Q. When we say we don't have good quality information to 25 followed or not? 25 allow us to know that policies are not being followed,

Page 101 Page 102

1 was that something you were seeking to improve on? 1 A. I mean, there are professional staff involved within the 2 A. It was, yes. Yes. 2 NCSC. Within CSAS, you've got professional staff and 3 Q. Has it been improved? 3 with commissions you've got professional staff, at 4 A. In my view, it has. I think there are still issues to 4 a local level. Whether or not it needs an overarching 5 address, in terms of having to wait to find out whether, 5 commission, in terms of professional staff that sit 6 in fact, somebody is following policy and procedures, in 6 outside of that, well, that's, I think, within the 7 the context of, if somebody isn't, then it's 7 context of the current independent safeguarding review 8 a retrospective look at whether somebody isn't, as 8 we want to undertake, and I would just want to make the 9 opposed to having hands-on understanding. 9 point that doing an independent review is a whole-system 10 Q. And so there is no -- the information to you wouldn't be 10 approach, as opposed to reacting to individual issues 11 contemporaneous, it would be looking back and seeing 11 that might arise. 12 that there had been a breach; is that what you mean? 12 Q. I want to go to page 6 now, please. Further down, it 13 A. If there had been a breach, yes. 13 says the negative points were -- the fourth bullet point 14 Q. Going to the bottom of that page, there were positive 14 down: 15 points: 15 "Commission chairs ..." 16 "Regular reviews by Nolan and Cumberlege. 16 By which you mean individual safeguarding chairs, do 17 "Covenants of care -- the envy of statutory 17 you?: 18 authorities. 18 "... have a role spec -- how do we know they are 19 "Achieving a lot at minimal cost and a lot of 19 doing it?" 20 pro bono work. 20 Is that the same point as earlier about not having 21 "The range of backgrounds contributes to the 21 good information about compliance? 22 independent voice." 22 A. I can't remember whether or not the commission chair's 23 There was a view expressed earlier about how the 23 role specification had then been updated from this. 24 NCSC should really have professional staff to assist it. 24 I can't remember. 25 Do you agree with that? 25 Q. Further down, you note a negative point was:

Page 103 Page 104 26 (Pages 101 to 104) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 "Complexity of policies and procedures." 1 Mr Pearson, which is on page 7. You say, to underpin 2 Which is something you touched upon earlier. 2 the NCSC's work, you recently developed a strategic 3 Could I take you now to a different document, 3 business plan which sets out the commission's core 4 please, CHC001936_002. Chair, it's behind your tab 13. 4 strategic aims, strategic and operational objectives and 5 Right at the top of the page, the top bullet 5 the annual plan. And we can see the 2018 to 2021 6 point -- just to introduce the document, this is an NCSC 6 strategic business plan at CHC001726 -- chair, your 7 Survivors Advisory Panel document, "Key thoughts on 7 tab 20. We will just go on to page 2, please, to get 8 victim and survivor perspective", and we see there the 8 a flavour of what the plan looks like. These are the 9 top bullet point: 9 strategic objectives: 10 "Let the church drive the policy/response not the 10 "To model and promote good governance with respect 11 insurers." 11 to safeguarding within the church. 12 Is that a sentiment that you recognise? 12 "To set the standards ..." 13 A. I think that has been the case in the past, yes. 13 If we look at point (g)(ii), promoting the "One 14 Q. By which you mean that it's no longer the case? 14 Church" approach. Now, the "One Church" approach was 15 A. I'm not fully conversant with any issues where insurers 15 something first spoken about by the Nolan Report -- 16 have driven policy, but we have policy and procedures 16 A. Yes. 17 that have been agreed, so I can't see why insurers would 17 Q. -- which was some time ago now. Is it still the case 18 want to step outside of that, and if they have, then it 18 that one has to persuade parts of the church to 19 will come to our notice. 19 subscribe to the "One Church" approach? 20 Q. But they are part of the sign-off process? 20 A. I think there needs to be more of a better understanding 21 A. Insurers might be, yes, if it has impact upon them. 21 of what "One Church" approach means, so if I can -- 22 Q. Do you have experience of policy being changed as 22 Q. Who is it that needs to understand? 23 a result? 23 A. If I can give you an example, following the hearing here 24 A. No. 24 on the Archdiocese of Birmingham, there was a response 25 Q. I'm now looking at paragraph 3.1 of your statement, 25 that they wanted to change some of the policy and

Page 105 Page 106

1 procedures to reflect some of the issues that had been 1 report to statutory agencies. And that should be, in 2 raised. 2 the context of culture, not have to be thought about. 3 Q. "They" being the archdiocese? 3 That's my understanding within, for instance, local 4 A. Yes. And they were informed not to do so because to do 4 authority safeguarding, which I've worked in. You don't 5 so would step outside of the "One Church" approach, and 5 need to tell people what to do in that context. 6 that's crucial, I think, to make sure that people are 6 The church, in terms of dealing with safeguarding, 7 following -- when I say "people", commissions, bishops, 7 is relatively new, in terms of history of safeguarding, 8 Congregation of Religious -- a policy and procedure 8 and so there are elements, I think, that still need to 9 approach, but also within that is the whole context of 9 be embedded in ensuring that automatic knowing what to 10 the culture of safeguarding, so it isn't just policy and 10 do without having to constantly look at procedures. So 11 procedures, it's the whole context. 11 it's embedding that within thought, not just, "What do 12 Q. It's quite a simple concept, isn't it, that every part 12 I do about this?" 13 of the church subscribes to one set of national policies 13 Q. And during your tenure, what has the NCSC done to do 14 and procedures? 14 that? I know it is a broad question, but -- 15 A. Yes. 15 A. It is a broad question. Well, one of the first things 16 Q. What is it that's been difficult about people 16 we did was to review the whole policy and procedures, to 17 understanding that? 17 make them much easier to be able to scope around, to 18 A. I suppose some of it relates to culture. 18 have an electronic system that made it much easier as 19 Q. What does that mean? 19 well, so there are very clear definitions in the 20 A. Well, in terms of safeguarding, there should be, as 20 difference between what is a policy, what is 21 there is with any organisation that deals with 21 a procedure, what is guidance, what is information. 22 safeguarding, an understanding that doesn't need, in 22 That was very confusing when I first came into the 23 a sense, to be thought through. It should be an 23 position of chair. 24 automatic response. So an allegation of abuse comes in, 24 Q. Can I ask you about a separate topic, which is the 25 there should be an automatic response to that, ie, to 25 extent of any contact between the NCSC and the

Page 107 Page 108 27 (Pages 105 to 108) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and/or the 1 A. No. 2 Holy See. You say -- I'm looking at paragraph 4.1 of 2 Q. Having not received a response, did you chase for one? 3 your statement, which is on page 8, if that assists -- 3 A. My understanding at the time is that are there had been 4 as chair, you have not had any contact with the CDF or 4 attempts previously to gather information, and the 5 the Holy See in relation to child protection and 5 responses extremely slow, and to send yet another letter 6 safeguarding matters. Is that right? 6 would probably not get a response. 7 A. That was the case at the time I wrote this. 7 Q. That was -- you were told that, were you? 8 Q. Right. Which was October 2017? 8 A. Yes. 9 A. Yes. 9 Q. By whom? 10 Q. The position has updated since, has it? 10 A. I can't remember where the conversation happened, but it 11 A. Yes. It was an issue that arose when -- if you just let 11 was a time after I'd sent the letter. 12 me reflect a second to try and remember. I was notified 12 Q. We heard from your immediate predecessor, 13 by the -- by Colette Limbrick that there was 13 Danny Sullivan, that there were meetings that 14 a disclosure of victim information which had either been 14 Danny Sullivan attended that the Papal Nuncio was 15 disclosed by the two dioceses who had that information 15 present at. Have you had the same experience? 16 and which was then given to the Holy See, the Doctrine 16 A. No. 17 of the Faith. 17 Q. I'm going to move on to explain how the NCSC oversees 18 Q. What was your communication with the -- was it with the 18 the work of CSAS, please. I'm looking at paragraph 5.1 19 CDF or another part of the -- 19 of your statement which is at page 9. 20 A. Well, I was advised of this issue arising, and I think 20 You have already outlined the process by which 21 that was early October 2018, and within a week or so, 21 policies are drafted and implemented, so I shan't go 22 I wrote a letter to the congregation to say, "This is 22 through that again. But I will go through to 23 the issue that's arisen. Can you assure me that you 23 paragraph 5.3, please, on page 10. You say that you 24 have not leaked this information?" 24 have never encountered a refusal to ratify 25 Q. Did you receive a response? 25 implementation of a policy or procedure; is that right?

Page 109 Page 110

1 A. That's correct. 1 understood, because there were significant changes to 2 Q. Can I also ask, one point you did make is that the 2 them, and then to measure audit against those would be 3 monitoring of compliance is undertaken by CSAS through 3 the view that I'm familiar with in working with the 4 audits? 4 local authority or the NHS. They wouldn't do audits 5 A. Yes. 5 against something that hadn't yet been properly 6 Q. But is it not right that, between 2015 to 2018, CSAS 6 examined, in terms of, well, is this up to date with 7 didn't select any part of the church for audit. There 7 current practice? 8 were two audits: Archdiocese of Westminster and of 8 Q. And that policy review was 2015 to 2018? 9 Hexham, and they were carried out for specific reason? 9 A. During that whole period, yes. 10 A. Yes. 10 Q. Do you think it could have been done shorter, quicker? 11 Q. So how much monitoring was there being done between 2015 11 A. I'm sure that that would be the case. I think one of 12 and 2018? 12 the issues that arose was the company that managed the 13 A. This was the period, I think, that we were collectively 13 electronic records could only adjust the policy and 14 working towards improving the policy and procedures. 14 procedures every six months. That was the contract that 15 It's very difficult to do an audit against policy and 15 was in place with them. So -- 16 procedures that may be out of sync, because what are you 16 Q. What do you mean by that, sorry? 17 going to audit? 17 A. The policy and procedures being electronic. 18 Q. You wanted the policies sorted first and then you can 18 Q. As in on the CSAS website? 19 audit against those policies? 19 A. Yes. And any adjustments to those had to wait for 20 A. Yes. 20 the -- whenever the next six-month period would arise. 21 Q. So the changing of the policies meant it stifled, if you 21 Q. Why? 22 like, the monitoring that could take place? 22 A. Because that's the contract that was in place. I wasn't 23 A. I'm not sure the word "stifle" is the right phrase, but 23 party to that contract. That was there before my time 24 I do think that the need to have some order to the 24 and before Colette Limbrick's time. So one of the areas 25 policy and procedures to make sure that people fully 25 of not just reviewing the policies and procedures, but

Page 111 Page 112 28 (Pages 109 to 112) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 was also to develop a better way of being able to make 1 other words, where the person is domicile. 2 adjustment immediately, and that's why then we 2 Q. If there is a complaint about the handling of a case, 3 commissioned -- I say "we", because it had been agreed 3 you may become involved; would that be fair? 4 through the process that's in place for policy and 4 A. It would be brought to my attention, in terms of the 5 procedures, that was agreed for a different company to 5 handling of the case, yes. 6 take over the web page. 6 Q. If an allegation involves a bishop or a religious 7 Q. So it isn't the situation now? 7 leader, or there has been a breach of policy or a case 8 A. Immediate change can be done. 8 has been in the public domain, CSAS may brief you on it? 9 Q. If the conferences ever refused to implement a policy 9 A. Yes. 10 that you had presented to them, you say that you would 10 Q. You say that in your tenure, although this statement was 11 point out the risk that may be associated with such 11 dated October 2017, in your tenure, you have never had 12 refusal. That would be what you -- 12 to raise any concerns with Safeguarding Commissions. 13 A. Yes, absolutely, and in writing. 13 Does that remain the case? 14 Q. But you believe the conferences support and accept the 14 A. I'm not aware currently, but -- I'm not aware that 15 mandate they gave to the NCSC and CSAS? 15 that's been the case. 16 A. Yes. 16 Q. I'm going to go to paragraph 10.4 of your statement, 17 Q. To be clear, the NCSC has no involvement in the 17 please, Mr Pearson, which is on page 18. This is where 18 investigation of allegations, does it? 18 you describe the period of review of the policies and 19 A. No, that's correct. 19 procedures and any changes to the policy or procedures 20 Q. That is for the diocese or religious congregation -- 20 are robustly scrutinised by the NCSC and the Survivors 21 A. Yes. 21 Advisory Panel -- 22 Q. -- who have that responsibility. If you receive an 22 A. Yes. 23 allegation directly, what do you do? 23 Q. -- before they are recommended for submission to the two 24 A. It is communicated to the relevant commission 24 conferences? 25 responsible for where the allegation originates from, in 25 A. Yes.

Page 113 Page 114

1 Q. Can you help us with the input that you get from the 1 A. This would suggest it's meant for commissions and 2 Survivors Advisory Panel? How does that work? 2 safeguarding coordinators. 3 A. It's normally taken by CSAS to the advisory panel. They 3 Q. If we go, please, to section 3 of this document, which 4 would make comment. They would come back to CSAS, who 4 is on page 6, you said in your statement that there's 5 would then bring it to the commission. There may be, as 5 a policy of mandatory reporting in the Catholic Church, 6 part of our process, that we want adjustments to any 6 is there not? 7 policy and procedure being suggested and we may also 7 A. Yes, as long as I make the caveat "mandatory" is not 8 then refer back to the Survivors Advisory Panel. 8 a legal position, it's a position where we expect that 9 Q. Dealing with your procedures, if we could go, please, to 9 if an allegation comes in, it's reported. 10 INQ004784, please -- chair, behind your tab 22 -- this 10 Q. Well, the first section -- we must be clear about 11 is the current section which is entitled "Children - 11 this -- relates to the management of allegations and 12 policy and procedure for the management of allegations 12 concerns in relation to individuals who are not in roles 13 and concerns". We see that it was updated quite 13 within the Catholic Church in England and Wales. It 14 recently -- 2 October 2019. That's right at the bottom 14 says: 15 of the page. 15 "If a child is considered to be in immediate danger, 16 A. Yes. 16 then a referral should be made directly to the police, 17 Q. It is to be reviewed in April 2021. The first question 17 informing the safeguarding coordinators as soon as 18 I would like to ask you is, who are these procedures 18 possible afterwards. 19 meant for? Do you recognise this document? 19 "In cases where the child is not considered to be in 20 A. I do, yes. It is relatively new, did you say? 20 immediate danger but where there is a risk of 21 Q. It was updated October 2019, but with very small 21 significant harm to a child: 22 amendments to a document that was uploaded, I think, in 22 "1. The person receiving the information about 23 the earlier part of this year. 23 alleged harm to a child must discuss the matter with the 24 A. Okay. 24 safeguarding representative, who will consult with the 25 Q. Who is this meant for? 25 safeguarding coordinator as soon as possible ..."

Page 115 Page 116 29 (Pages 113 to 116) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 So is there a distinction, then: immediate danger, 1 whether a child about whom they have concerns meets the 2 go to the police; not immediate danger, go in the first 2 threshold of being at risk of significant harm; 3 instance to the safeguarding representative? 3 "If in doubt, all concerns should be referred to the 4 A. Yes. 4 local authority Children's Services Department for 5 Q. There is a lot about what to do if somebody isn't 5 consideration ... 6 available. I'm just going to proceed on the basis that 6 "The safeguarding coordinator will usually seek 7 everyone that should be is available. 7 consent from parents/carers to make a referral to the 8 A. Okay. 8 local authority Children's Services Department. 9 Q. Point 2: 9 However, if the concerns are a child protection matter, 10 "Through discussion with the safeguarding 10 no consent is required as to involve the parents or 11 coordinator and, if required, in consultation with the 11 refusal to make the referral might compromise the safety 12 commission chair, the safeguarding coordinator will 12 of the child." 13 determine whether the matter should be referred to the 13 I'm asked to ask you in respect of that, do you 14 statutory authorities ..." 14 accept that this is unsound safeguarding practice, 15 So we are in a position in which, if there is a risk 15 particularly given that parents can be persuaded that it 16 of significant harm to a child and the person against 16 is not in their child's interests to make a referral 17 whom the allegation is made is not within a role within 17 and, in any event, other children may be at risk? 18 the church, there is a discretion exercised, is there 18 What's your view on that? 19 not, as to whether or not to report to the statutory 19 A. I think it's right that parents should be informed 20 authorities? 20 there's going to be -- there is an issue of 21 A. That would suggest that that's the case, yes. 21 safeguarding, and whether that should be reported or 22 Q. Is that the position, as you understand it to be, or is 22 not. The second part of that makes it clear that if 23 this at variance to what you understood? 23 there are concerns about child protection, then consent 24 A. It is at variance to what I understood. 24 isn't required, so it would be reported. 25 Q. "It is not for individuals within the church to decide 25 Q. Following that:

Page 117 Page 118

1 "Information will be shared with families, unless to 1 Catholic Church in England and Wales." 2 do so would compromise a child's safety as directed by 2 Starting with the first paragraph, "Application of 3 statutory agencies." 3 the policy and procedure": 4 A. Yes. 4 "This policy and procedure should be read in 5 Q. The paragraph following that: 5 conjunction with statutory guidance on managing 6 "In addition to any intervention provided by 6 allegations against people working with children ..." 7 statutory authorities, the parish safeguarding 7 We don't need to go to it, but the footnote refers 8 representative, in consultation with the safeguarding 8 the reader to two pieces of legislation: Working 9 coordinator, will consider whether there is any local 9 Together to Safeguard Children 2018; and Safeguarding 10 assistance or support that can be offered to the child 10 Children: Working Together under the Children Act 2004 11 and family. This might include signposting to relevant 11 (2007) Wales. So we are looking at the policy and 12 services or facilitating access to existing parish 12 procedure, we are looking at two pieces of legislation, 13 activities. If assistance is initially refused, the 13 the local HR policies, so that's the fourth document, 14 child and family should be informed that they can take 14 and procedures of the diocese or religious congregation 15 up the offer of assistance at any time." 15 or order and the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England 16 I read that out for the sake of completeness. That 16 and Wales' Directory on the Canonical Status of the 17 is section 3, effectively? 17 Clergy (Catholic Trust Society, 2009). So that's the 18 A. Yes. 18 fifth document. It is quite a lot to get through, isn't 19 Q. Section 4, the title of which is at the bottom of the 19 it? 20 same -- you have it there at the top -- there, I think, 20 A. It is, but if you look at safeguarding procedures within 21 digitally: 21 the local authority or within health, you have those 22 "Management of allegations and concerns in relation 22 same contexts. People are referred from one procedure 23 to clergy, religious, rectors, vice-rectors, seminary 23 to the next to make sure that there is a connection. 24 staff members, members of the safeguarding structure, 24 Q. "It is the policy of the Catholic Church in England and 25 laypersons and volunteers acting in the name of the 25 Wales to report to the statutory authorities all

Page 119 Page 120 30 (Pages 117 to 120) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 allegations of abuse made against those working in the 1 authority's designated officer (LADO) for safeguarding 2 name of the church, regardless of whether the 2 children." 3 allegations or concerns relate to a person's behaviour 3 By whom? 4 in relation to their role within the church or another 4 A. That would be done by the safeguarding coordinator, if 5 setting." 5 it's brought to their attention. 6 So that's the mandatory reporting paragraph. 6 Q. Would you agree that that isn't clear from these 7 A. Yes. 7 procedures, who it is that actually is to do the 8 Q. "This procedure must be applied in all situations where 8 referring? 9 it is alleged that a member of the clergy or 9 A. It's clear within the policy and procedures who takes 10 religious ...", and so on, and three bullet points: 10 responsibility for reporting to statutory agencies, and 11 "Has behaved in a way that has harmed or may have 11 that's a safeguarding coordinator. That's their 12 harmed a child; 12 responsibility. 13 "May have committed a criminal offence against or 13 Q. Should the matter be raised with them. It is dependent 14 related to a child; or 14 on that, isn't it? 15 "Has or may have behaved towards a child in a way 15 A. The mandatory reporting context is saying that's where 16 that indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children. 16 it goes. 17 "Allegations or concerns may be about current events 17 Q. "Allegations about conduct that do not meet the 18 or something that happened in the past but is now only 18 threshold for implementing safeguarding procedures", is 19 being reported. In either case, the response must be 19 the next section. What does that mean, can you help us 20 the same. This is particularly necessary as events in 20 with that? 21 the past may have current relevance to the safety of 21 A. Sorry, just refer me to that particular part? 22 others that might need protecting. 22 Q. Following on, on the same page, please, if we could 23 "When a person's conduct towards a child may impact 23 highlight a section which should say "Allegations about 24 on their suitability to work with or continue to work 24 conduct that do not meet the threshold for implementing 25 with children, this must be referred to the local 25 safeguarding procedures". I don't think you have that.

Page 121 Page 122

1 Yes, thank you. Do you see the bold type at the top? 1 safeguarding coordinator, having received that 2 A. Yes, thank you. 2 information, reports directly to statutory authorities. 3 Q. "Allegations about conduct that do not meet the 3 That's the process. So I'm not sure I'm connecting with 4 threshold for implementing safeguarding procedures"? 4 you saying this is a complex process. 5 A. Yes. And your question about that was ...? 5 Q. I don't think I have said that, actually. I'm asking 6 Q. What does that mean? 6 you about it. 7 A. Well, if it doesn't meet the threshold of allegations of 7 A. My apologies, then, if you didn't. 8 abuse of children, and there are procedures within local 8 Q. "Concerns about conduct which do not meet the criteria 9 authorities as to threshold for safeguarding, then the 9 for referral to statutory agencies should be referred to 10 issue there is saying, so if it doesn't meet that 10 the bishop, religious congregation leader or their 11 criteria, then it's still within the context within the 11 delegate for consideration as to whether any further 12 Catholic Church, should be referred to bishop, 12 action is required to address the matter." 13 religious, and so on. 13 So your position is, the safeguarding coordinator 14 Q. Do you think the reader of this document could easily 14 exercises his or her discretion as to whether or not 15 identify which threshold you're referring to? 15 something meets the threshold for implementing 16 A. Within the context of dealing with this on a daily 16 safeguarding procedures. Should the decision be that it 17 basis, yes. 17 doesn't meet the threshold, the safeguarding coordinator 18 Q. But the policies talk about referring the matter to the 18 goes to the bishop or the leader of -- 19 safeguarding representative, so is this not a policy or 19 A. No, the threshold -- the -- a referral given to 20 procedure that can be looked at by somebody that isn't 20 a safeguarding coordinator is not for discretion. 21 within the safeguarding structure, that just has 21 Q. What if the safeguarding coordinator takes the view that 22 a concern and wants to know what to do? 22 it doesn't meet the threshold for implementing -- 23 A. The policy and procedures within this are about enabling 23 A. It is not for the safeguarding coordinator to decide 24 safeguarding representatives of an alert that's given to 24 thresholds; it's the local authority who decide 25 them, is reported to the safeguarding coordinator. The 25 thresholds.

Page 123 Page 124 31 (Pages 121 to 124) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 Q. "Procedure for dealing with an allegation", 4.2: 1 and that talks about what happens when a child is 2 "If a child is considered to be at immediate risk of 2 considered to be at immediate risk? 3 harm, a referral should be made directly to the 3 A. Yes. 4 police ..." 4 Q. Go to the police? 5 That's there at 4.2, isn't it? 5 A. Yes. 6 A. Yes. 6 Q. I'm referring you now to 4.2.1, and the numbering is 7 Q. At 4.2.1: 7 suggesting it is the same section as what we just spoke 8 "Reporting arrangements for allegation against 8 about, immediate risk. 9 clergy, religious, laypersons and volunteers." 9 A. Yes. 10 If we go over the page: 10 Q. So is it anything to do with the section above it about 11 "In cases where the child is not considered to be at 11 meeting the threshold? 12 immediate risk of harm, the person receiving the 12 A. My understanding of this is there are two levels. One 13 information about alleged harm discusses the matter with 13 is immediate risk: it has to be reported. If there is 14 the safeguarding representative, who will consult with 14 not an immediate risk, and I can't think of an 15 the safeguarding coordinator as soon as possible ..." 15 example -- so say, for instance, a child in a playgroup 16 Then we again talk about what happens when people 16 that takes place within a community hall within the 17 aren't available. Is that in addition to referring to 17 Catholic Church, within a parish, and the child is 18 the police or the statutory authorities? We are talking 18 handled roughly by somebody who manages that, and 19 about not immediate risk of harm, but risk of harm? 19 there's no immediate risk of harm because somebody, say, 20 A. This, again, is in relation to not meeting the threshold 20 for instance, has stepped in, but it should be reported 21 of safeguarding, ie, there's not immediate risk. So it 21 to the safeguarding -- if it goes direct to the 22 is saying, if there are concerns that need to be raised, 22 safeguarding representative or the safeguarding 23 then that goes from the safeguarding representative to 23 coordinator and there's the view given there's no 24 the safeguarding coordinator. 24 immediate risk, then that's where that matter, I think, 25 Q. Section 4.2 is procedure for dealing with an allegation, 25 would fit within those procedures.

Page 125 Page 126

1 Q. Which is to basically operate within the church's 1 "If a child is considered to be at immediate risk of 2 safeguarding structure? 2 harm, a referral ...", it says "should be made"? 3 A. Yes. 3 A. Yes, that should say "must", I would agree with you. 4 Q. So the mandatory reporting only relates to children 4 Q. There is also use of the word "vital" in the procedures. 5 thought to be at immediate risk? 5 Can I take you to page 6, please, at the top of that 6 A. I think there needs to be a caveat to that that if, on 6 page, the second paragraph: 7 the basis of when somebody is reporting something that 7 "Given that allegations can affect livelihoods and 8 seems to be a concern and, as part of gathering 8 reputations, it is vital that a high level of 9 information, it then emerges there's a more serious 9 confidentiality is maintained always." 10 issue here, then that would be taken by the safeguarding 10 I'm asked to ask you this: because that's the only 11 coordinator directly to the LADO. 11 time that word "vital" is used, would this suggest that 12 Q. A couple of paragraphs down, it's at the bottom of the 12 the church's primary concern appears to be a reputation 13 screen that we are looking at now: 13 of its own? 14 "The bishop or religious congregation leader must 14 A. No. I think that would be in the context of any 15 consider whether the behaviour in question may be 15 reporting, the allegation of abuse, or one where the 16 subject to canonical penalties ..." 16 concern has been raised; that the information people are 17 I want to focus there on the use of the word "must". 17 given within a safeguarding context is confidential. 18 Do you agree that that word is unequivocal, that is what 18 Q. On a similar point, can I take you, please, to page 15 19 has to happen? 19 of the same document, section 9, "Temporary removal from 20 A. Yes. 20 ministry, ecclesiastical office or other post". It 21 Q. Do you agree that the word "should" is less unequivocal 21 says: 22 than that? 22 "There are occasions during an investigation when 23 A. Yes. 23 there is a need to prevent scandal, protect the freedom 24 Q. If we look at 4.2, and I'm sorry to jump around, but 24 of witnesses and to safeguard the course of justice, and 25 back to page 7 at the bottom: 25 so a temporary withdrawal from ministry, ecclesiastical

Page 127 Page 128 32 (Pages 125 to 128) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 office or other post within the church is necessary." 1 police; take notes and it says there allegations of past 2 Why is it that "prevent scandal" is the first 2 abuse should be reported to the police even if the 3 justification in that paragraph for removing somebody 3 alleged perpetrator is no longer alive or not perceived 4 from ministry temporarily? 4 to be a current risk to children/adults at risk, and 5 A. I don't know. 5 safeguarding coordinator will provide feedback. 6 Q. Do you think it should be there? 6 Do you accept, if the document is talking about 7 A. On reflection, no. 7 contacting the safeguarding coordinator, this must be 8 Q. But it's the NCSC that robustly scrutinise, in your 8 pitched at people other than the safeguarding 9 words, these procedures? 9 coordinator? 10 A. Yes. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Has this slipped through the net? 11 Q. And so it's left to that person's discretion -- and we 12 A. I'd have to say yes. 12 know not whether that person is an expert or a layman -- 13 Q. On the same point, if we go, please, to tab 25, 13 as to whether or not there is an immediate risk of 14 INQ004766. Chair, it is tab 27. I want to be fair. 14 danger. If they decide no, it's the church's 15 There is a flowchart in addition to the chapter that we 15 safeguarding structure that's looked at, not the 16 spoke about which gives a quick guide, as it says, to 16 statutory authority's. Do you agree? 17 responding to all allegations of abuse or concerns about 17 A. Yes. 18 children and adults at risk. If we go down the page, 18 Q. If we look finally, before we take a short break, 19 please, "Concerns" in the middle of the screen, beneath 19 Mr Pearson, subject to the chair's view, go to, chair, 20 that: 20 your tab 26, INQ004786. Page 37 of that document, 21 "Is there any immediate risk or danger?" 21 please. This is the annual report 2018 from the NCSC, 22 We have said already, if there is, yes, it is clear: 22 and there's a section on the right-hand side of the 23 immediately contact the police, social services or LADO. 23 page, "Reporting to statutory authorities": 24 No: contact the safeguarding coordinator. If the 24 "The church referred 62 per cent of allegations and 25 safeguarding coordinator is not available, contact the 25 concerns to statutory agencies.

Page 129 Page 130

1 "In the remaining cases, 28 per cent were already 1 this: the term "scandal", does it have a different or 2 known to statutory agencies and the remaining 2 a particular definition in a canonical sense? Do you 3 10 per cent were not reported to statutory agencies due 3 know that? 4 to there being insufficient evidence or the allegations 4 A. No idea. 5 or concerns appearing to be unsubstantiated, there being 5 Q. In a canonical sense, it means an act or omission that 6 no safeguarding issue or the victim not consenting to 6 causes sin and spiritual harm to others. Were you aware 7 the referral." 7 of that? 8 Who is it that decides whether or not there is 8 A. No, not in terms of canonical. 9 insufficient evidence to refer? 9 Q. "The concept of scandal is therefore about recognising 10 A. I would take that to be the safeguarding coordinator. 10 the victims and survivors of a canonical crime and 11 Q. So it's the church, is it? 11 preventing them from being spiritually undermined by 12 A. Yes. 12 what has taken place." 13 MR SAAD: Chair, may I ask that we have a brief break there, 13 I'm reading from a witness we will hear from next 14 please, perhaps only for five minutes. 14 week, Monsignor Gordon Read: 15 THE CHAIR: I think we will take our afternoon break just 15 "It should not be misinterpreted as relating to 16 now and return at 3.15 pm. 16 reputational or public relations considerations. In 17 MR SAAD: I see, very well. 17 many cases, the antidote to scandal is, in fact, 18 (3.00 pm) 18 publicity addressing the issue and showing it is being 19 (A short break) 19 dealt with." 20 (3.15 pm) 20 Having read out the full piece to you, were you 21 THE CHAIR: Mr Saad? 21 aware of that? 22 MR SAAD: Thank you, chair. 22 A. Could you just say that again, please? 23 Mr Pearson, picking up again on the point about the 23 Q. Were you aware that the concept of scandal, in the 24 reference to preventing scandal in the part of the 24 canonical sense, is, therefore, about recognising the 25 procedures I referred you to, I have been asked to ask 25 victims and survivors of a canonical crime and

Page 131 Page 132 33 (Pages 129 to 132) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 preventing them from being spiritually undermined by 1 they are expected to be intrinsic to the very fabric of 2 what has taken place? 2 the church." 3 A. No, I wasn't aware. 3 Are you saying that because you feel you still need 4 Q. Can you help us with whether the reference to "scandal" 4 to persuade people that safeguarding has to be intrinsic 5 in the procedures is meant to be in the canonical sense 5 to the fabric of the church? 6 or not? 6 A. I'm saying it in the context of, culture of safeguarding 7 A. It suggests that's the way. 7 needs to be embedded, as I was referring to earlier, 8 Q. What suggests, sorry? 8 that one shouldn't be in a position of trying to think 9 A. Sorry, in terms of what you have just read out, it's 9 through, "Well, what do I do?", when you have an issue 10 around preventing scandal in terms of victims and 10 of safeguarding harm, whether to a child or a vulnerable 11 survivors; is that correct? 11 adult, and, therefore, there should be a clear 12 Q. Well, I'm asking -- the word "scandal" is used in your 12 understanding of what to do and why one is doing it. In 13 procedures, and I'm asking if it's being used in the 13 that context, then, it shouldn't be -- safeguarding 14 canonical sense or not; do you know? 14 shouldn't be seen as an add-on, as another element of 15 A. No. 15 the Catholic Church. As I say, it has to be embedded 16 Q. You don't know whether -- 16 and is intrinsic to safeguarding. 17 A. I don't know whether it is. 17 Q. On a separate topic, can you describe to us -- we have 18 Q. We were looking at the NCSC 2018 annual report. I would 18 heard about a link role. 19 like to go to page 5 of that, so that's INQ004786, 19 A. Yes. 20 please. This is a part of the foreword that had been 20 Q. What is that, please? 21 highlighted. You say: 21 A. It was an arrangement put in place to support diocesan 22 "It is important to highlight that safeguarding 22 commissions and those who are independent religious 23 structures and arrangements to protect children, young 23 commissions in making a connection between the NCSC and 24 people and adults at risk from harm are not an 'add on' 24 those commissions. That was in place before I came into 25 to the work of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, 25 this position.

Page 133 Page 134

1 What I had understood, as I became aware of the 1 Q. Do you think you should? 2 issues around safeguarding within the Catholic Church as 2 A. I think it's for dioceses to determine, first of all, in 3 chair of the commission, that the link role was 3 terms of their geographical makeup, what arrangements 4 sometimes misinterpreted as being an audit process, and 4 need to be in place for safeguarding. Now, in that 5 it isn't. 5 context, that's not any different to those working in 6 So the NCSC did a review of what that meant, in 6 safeguarding, say, in the statutory sector: they have to 7 terms of the link role, and revised the arrangements for 7 determine the amount of work that's coming in, the 8 what "link role" meant, which is about trying to support 8 demands, the resources they need, to then respond to 9 commissions on a visit, to see what safeguarding 9 them appropriately. 10 arrangements are in place, what barriers there may be in 10 I am aware that there is a difference in terms of 11 relation to implementing procedures, for instance, as 11 the monies that are held within dioceses, but I don't 12 well as understanding: well, what work are you doing 12 know the amount, so I understood from the previous NCSC 13 that's actually effective and are there issues that need 13 chair before me that one particular diocese had 14 to be addressed by the NCSC that we could support those 14 insufficient monies to be able to carry out 15 commissions with? 15 responsibilities, not just in terms of safeguarding but 16 Q. So it is another strand of the NCSC monitoring what's 16 other aspects, and so, therefore, were supported by 17 going on and really getting a feel for what's happening? 17 other dioceses. 18 A. It's a better understanding. As I say, it's not an 18 Q. Now, you also, in a more recent statement that you 19 audit process, but it is seen as a means of supporting 19 provided in July this year, talk about audits and 20 commissions and to make sure there's not a total 20 quality assurance. I'm going to speak in more detail 21 disconnect between the NCSC and commissions. 21 about that with Dr Limerick tomorrow. But you have 22 Q. Do you, via the link role or any other part of 22 moved, haven't you, from what was felt to be something 23 monitoring, have any oversight of the budgets that are 23 like a tick-box exercise before your tenure into 24 allocated for safeguarding by any part of the church? 24 something more thematic now? 25 A. No. 25 A. Yes.

Page 135 Page 136 34 (Pages 133 to 136) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 Q. Is that a fair summary? 1 Q. At paragraph 23, you talk about what was 2 A. That's a summary, yes. 2 recommendation 72 in the Cumberlege Report, which is 3 Q. The more thematic approach has been adopted from the 3 what I will call the general decree recommendation. 4 beginning of this year and it is ongoing as we speak? 4 That was made in -- the Cumberlege Report was 2007. It 5 A. Yes. 5 was suggested or advised that this recommendation should 6 Q. We have already spoken -- I'm looking, if it helps you, 6 be implemented 12 months after the acceptance of the 7 Mr Pearson, at page 12 of your second statement, which 7 report, which is obviously way before your tenure. Are 8 you will find behind tab 2 of the bundle in front of 8 you able to help us with why nothing was done until more 9 you. You say: 9 recently about this? 10 "The NCSC does not have any powers to ensure 10 A. There were certainly discussions from my tenure around 11 compliance with its policies. The national policies and 11 how to put in place the recommendations, what was termed 12 procedures are approved by the Catholic Bishops of 12 recognitio. The challenges with doing that was, it 13 England and Wales and in turn are taken to their 13 would have to be signed off, so to speak, by the 14 trustees for approval of implementation. The NCSC can 14 Holy See, Doctrine of the Faith, and if there were then 15 bring matters of non-compliance to the attention of 15 subsequent changes, that would have to go back for 16 bishops and religious leaders. It is the responsibility 16 amendment, and so, though it was a Cumberlege Commission 17 of the bishops, religious leaders and trustees of the 17 recommendation, that clearly wouldn't be acceptable, in 18 respective dioceses and religious congregations to 18 safeguarding terms, to continually go to the Holy See to 19 ensure that policies are complied with and take remedial 19 make changes. 20 action." 20 Q. I said nothing was done. That's perhaps wrong. It was 21 But you can't recall, is this right, an occasion 21 considered, but the consideration was, actually, if we 22 when the NCSC was required to bring a matter of 22 were to do this, it would make the changing of the 23 non-compliance to the attention of a bishop or religious 23 policy so difficult that it's not workable? 24 leader? 24 A. That's correct. 25 A. That's correct, yes. 25 Q. So it wasn't implemented?

Page 137 Page 138

1 A. It wasn't implemented, but, nevertheless, the commission 1 NCSC. A suggestion was made by Mr Spear that some 2 did have discussions about how to overcome this. 2 decisions, at least, are taken by yourself, the 3 Q. This is during your tenure? 3 vice-chairs, perhaps in negotiation with the two 4 A. This is during my tenure. 4 conferences, and some decisions are presented to the 5 Q. So what's changed? 5 commission as a fait accompli. What's your response to 6 A. There was an arrangement in America, for instance, where 6 that? 7 they had an overarching policy which, effectively, is 7 A. Sorry, can I just clarify, are you talking about 8 this general decree, so the general decree sets out the 8 decisions that I take to the plenary meetings? 9 overarching policy, but the policy and procedures 9 Q. Is it ever the case that a decision -- and a specific 10 underneath around safeguarding would then not need 10 example was cited about the Safer Spaces Project. 11 ratifying for every change, and so that's the process 11 A. Yes. 12 that was then put in place in April/May. 12 Q. Mr Spear attended a meeting and had been told that 13 Q. April/May would have been very soon after the meeting at 13 a decision had already been taken about the level of 14 the NCSC in which you expressed frustration at not being 14 funding to be given to it. Do you agree, firstly, that 15 able to assert the commission's will perhaps more 15 a decision was made about that before the meeting? 16 assertively, if I can put it that way? 16 A. The decision was made before my time, in terms of 17 A. Yes. 17 setting up a pastoral support scheme, and when I came 18 Q. Would this help with that? 18 into position as chair, I took on then that 19 A. I think this makes a tremendous difference, because it 19 responsibility to progress it, along with others. There 20 holds the Catholic Church to follow safeguarding 20 were difficulties -- if I just concentrate on 21 arrangements that are in place. It would mean, for 21 Safe Spaces, because I think it is a good example. 22 instance, if a bishop or congregation leader didn't 22 There were difficulties trying to get this into place; 23 follow procedures, then that would be immediately 23 in part, because the amount of monies that would be 24 a breach of Canon law. 24 needed to support what effectively was being seen as 25 Q. I want to ask you, please, how decisions are made on the 25 a helpline wasn't very clear, and the arrangements that

Page 139 Page 140 35 (Pages 137 to 140) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 need to be put in place were quite complex because we 1 A. I think the comment I made earlier about the need to 2 had advice from a pro bono independent lawyer who was 2 review safeguarding arrangements and structures within 3 helping us to take through the process. 3 the Catholic Church has to encompass that in terms of 4 I don't agree that people were not party to the 4 the resources that are necessary, how decisions are made 5 decision making, nor do I agree it was taken as a given 5 needs to be more than just within four meetings, and so, 6 and no consultation, because Mr Spear, for instance, was 6 part of the terms of reference that have been drafted 7 involved in two meetings at which the issues around 7 includes -- and the scope includes looking at the whole 8 funding were discussed in detail, the issues around what 8 issue, as a -- a whole approach as opposed to 9 needed to be in place, which was a helpline, was also 9 a piecemeal approach, because that will then address 10 discussed fully, and also within the NCSC. 10 collectively the range of issues that are challenging 11 The development of that then took a different 11 within safeguarding within the Catholic Church of 12 course, when the Church of England expressed interest 12 England and Wales. 13 that they were looking to do something similar and, 13 Q. I want to ask you about the Cumberlege Report and 14 therefore, the decision was taken to set up a management 14 monitoring the progress of it, but does it come down to 15 board to progress that. 15 this, and I want to go to page 14, please, paragraph 29. 16 Now, that was fully reported in every meeting, and, 16 You say: 17 yes, of course decisions have to be made. If you only 17 "The fact that the safeguarding landscape has 18 have four meetings a year, decisions have to be made 18 changed since Cumberlege is something that has been 19 outside of that. So the mandate of taking that forward 19 considered by the wider church. Reports containing 20 was very clear as well, which was with myself and 20 stark revelations of child sexual abuse within the 21 vice-chairs. 21 Catholic Church and evident failures of local leadership 22 Q. Do you think, given the workload of the NCSC, that 22 have caused the bishops of England and Wales to reflect 23 having four meetings a year and for the chair to be 23 on their own leadership and on the responsibility they 24 given, at least in the job description, one day a week, 24 hold for ensuring that safeguarding is embedded in every 25 that that's anywhere near enough? 25 aspect of the life of the church."

Page 141 Page 142

1 Are you saying, really, the Cumberlege Report was so 1 that he felt that the NCSC was not a strategic body, but 2 long ago, things have changed so much since then, really 2 one that was reactive rather than proactive. Would you 3 it's time for another review? 3 agree or disagree with that? 4 A. Yes, I am. 4 A. I would disagree. The whole focus of the NCSC has been 5 Q. And that's what has been started and that's what -- work 5 strategic. The fact we put together an agreed quality 6 is ongoing on that now? 6 assurance framework, we put together a business plan, we 7 A. Yes. We have appointed the chair to the independent 7 amended the business plan. Mr Spear was part of that 8 review and suggested a panel of people to support the 8 whole process. He had opportunities to be able to 9 chair. 9 contribute to the discussions that took place with the 10 Q. A point was made that, before this review, the current 10 business plan. It does set out strategic objectives -- 11 review, there was little by way of monitoring the 11 aims and objectives. 12 implementation of the Cumberlege recommendations. Would 12 Q. His view was that, without having a grasp on prevalence 13 you agree or disagree with that? 13 of abuse, it's difficult to have clear strategy 14 A. I would disagree. I think the issues of Cumberlege were 14 thereafter. Do you, firstly, agree that you didn't 15 addressed in the very early days by previous chairs. 15 carry out analysis of prevalence? 16 The statement of the -- my predecessor has made it clear 16 A. I think analysis of prevalence has to be more than 17 that -- he makes reference to Cumberlege, and there was 17 knowing how many people abuse. The methodology of 18 a record kept of all the recommendations and what had 18 looking at abuse and the statistical information we 19 been achieved, and my statement relates to the 19 have, there needs -- and this is a challenge, I think, 20 particular areas that were still yet to be achieved. 20 in every safeguarding arena, it's not new to the 21 Q. We have seen earlier today correspondence between you 21 Catholic Church in terms of how do you look -- you can't 22 and Mr Spear. 22 just look at allegations, for instance, because you need 23 A. Yes. 23 to know what the evidence is of when it's been proven, 24 Q. Can I summarise his criticisms and give you an 24 what the evidence is in terms of allegations that 25 opportunity to respond to them. The first was really 25 haven't been proven, and so on. It's that analysis that

Page 143 Page 144 36 (Pages 141 to 144) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 needs to be considered. The NCSC, as part of that 1 safeguarding. 2 process, have highlighted in the 2018 report that there 2 One of the other problems is, it almost becomes 3 needs to be a far more in-depth approach to data 3 a divorce from those regulating to those carrying out 4 analysis, and that's why we have decided to separate the 4 the task. If, on the basis of the current audits that 5 data analysis from the narrative for 2018, so it will 5 are being taken, it does suggest there is more ownership 6 give a better picture. 6 of safeguarding, I think the whole safeguarding review 7 But, having said that, the strategic approach to 7 is something that needs to consider whether there is an 8 safeguarding is ensuring that people are safeguarded, 8 independent arm or not, but I think there are both 9 whatever the number might be. 9 advantages and disadvantages of having an external audit 10 Q. Finally, the inquiry asked a number of core participants 10 process, and if we are talking about the church 11 to provide proposals as to what this inquiry ought to 11 embedding a culture of safeguarding, there is a real 12 recommend for the Catholic Church going forward. One of 12 difficulty, I think, of then it becomes somebody else's 13 the suggestions is an independent auditing programme, 13 job. 14 perhaps external from NCSC and CSAS and, indeed, the 14 Q. Are there any proposals you would like the inquiry to 15 church at all. What's your view on that? 15 consider? 16 A. I think one of the difficulties of externalising audits 16 A. In relation to ...? 17 is, it then is not owned by those who are carrying out 17 Q. How to improve safeguarding within the Catholic Church 18 the process of safeguarding. 18 in the future? 19 So, for instance, if I give an example, within local 19 A. Well, I think mandatory reporting has been discussed for 20 authorities' safeguarding arrangements, they have 20 a number of years, in terms of regulatory mandatory 21 inspections, and they occur every so often, which will 21 reporting. I do think the Catholic Church has reached 22 include a whole audit process. The problem with that 22 the point of telling people that that's what needs to 23 is, it doesn't take place as regularly as it should, 23 happen. Having it in place is the right thing, I think. 24 they're seen sometimes as taking so much time up that 24 It can be a bit complex as to who then is involved in 25 people actually can't get on with the day job of 25 the mandatory reporting. I do think there should be

Page 145 Page 146

1 mandatory reporting in any allegation where somebody is 1 that, here is a person who wanted to resolve not 2 in a position of trust in the Catholic Church. That 2 a safeguarding issue, as such, but to raise concerns 3 will require legislation. But I do think, at the same 3 about the process that was undertaken, and that process 4 time, the general decree reinforces that mandatory 4 lies with either a religious order and diocese and, in 5 reporting. 5 this particular instance, the interface between dioceses 6 So, for instance, if you have a congregation of 6 and religious order wasn't dealt with properly. 7 religious who step outside of safeguarding within the 7 My ability, as -- sorry, it's not my ability, but 8 general decree, the bishop has the power to say, "You 8 the position of the NCSC to step in and resolve that is 9 are not staying here". 9 not within the mandate of the NCSC, so I fully 10 Q. Finally, can I ask you this: A711 gave evidence to this 10 understood her frustration and concern and the emotional 11 inquiry on Tuesday, and this was somebody who approached 11 impact and psychological impact it had for her, trying 12 you for help and you met with her, I think, on a number 12 to deal with this over a significant period of time. 13 of occasions, but had to say to her that you couldn't 13 I know you said I met with her. We actually had regular 14 force any part of the church to do something, and she 14 correspondence -- 15 said this about you: 15 Q. Yes. 16 "I found Chris supportive and willing to listen, 16 A. -- in terms of emails, to try to move on and work with 17 but, no fault of his, ineffectual, in the sense of that 17 the diocese to respond appropriately. 18 he cannot have influence over dioceses to make them 18 Now, I do think that whole scenario, first of all, 19 compliant and, in that sense, it makes me question the 19 was captured in terms of my meetings with 20 point of having these national bodies, because dioceses 20 Colette Limbrick to look at, how do we deal with issues 21 can just do as they want." 21 around process that are not dealt with properly, 22 Is she wrong? 22 separate to safeguarding investigations, but part of it. 23 A. I think there was -- or there is a challenge. There is 23 So if somebody is unhappy with the process, what does 24 a challenge, in terms of the NCSC are not mandated to 24 one do? And a draft document has been put together to 25 investigate, and it did cause me considerable concern 25 take that forward. I did say to the individual I would

Page 147 Page 148 37 (Pages 145 to 148) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 be more than happy that she became part of reviewing 1 Examination by MS CAREY 2 that process, but, clearly, it's -- it was a painful 2 MS CAREY: Take a seat, Mr Marshall. Thank you very much. 3 experience for her and probably not the right time for 3 You are, I believe, David John Marshall? 4 her to be involved, but, nevertheless, on an individual 4 A. That's me, yes. 5 basis, that was offered. 5 Q. You are now the chair of the Survivor Advisory Panel, 6 The issue about dealing with people not dealing 6 and, indeed, have been the chair since its inaugural 7 properly with due process that is there, I would like to 7 meeting on 12 February 2016? 8 see as part of the whole review of safeguarding. So 8 A. That's correct, yes. 9 there has to be: what happens if somebody doesn't do 9 Q. By way of background, I think you were a police officer 10 what they should do? And this is not about not 10 for about 30 years, at least nine of which were spent in 11 following up allegations of abuse, this is more around 11 child abuse investigations. You were the head of the 12 how we deal with people. 12 paedophile unit. You have chaired an ACPO working group 13 MR SAAD: Those are all the questions I have for you, 13 and updated guidance in relation to child abuse? 14 Mr Pearson. Chair, are there any questions you have? 14 A. Yes. 15 THE CHAIR: No, we have no questions. Thank you, 15 Q. You now act as a consultant; is that right? 16 Mr Pearson. 16 A. That's correct. 17 (The witness withdrew) 17 Q. In what area? 18 MR SAAD: The next witness will be dealt with by Ms Carey, 18 A. Well, primarily in investigating child homicides and 19 so I hand over to her. 19 suspicious deaths, but also safeguarding training. My 20 MS CAREY: Chair, the next witness is going to be 20 statement mentions working for CPAS. I don't work for 21 Mr David Marshall. We will just take a moment to 21 them anymore. But that's to do with family commitments, 22 rearrange the witness box. Thank you very much. 22 nothing else. But I did a lot of safeguarding training 23 MR DAVID JOHN MARSHALL ( affirmed) 23 for churches as well. 24 24 Q. I think, between 2012 and 2016, you worked in Belfast on 25 25 their public inquiry into historic institutional abuse,

Page 149 Page 150

1 and you helped deliver training -- is this right? -- in 1 Q. Have you had any discussions beyond this document as to 2 the area of safeguarding? 2 why it was felt that there was a need for a Survivor 3 A. Yes, that's correct. 3 Advisory Panel? 4 Q. Can we turn, please, to the creation of SAP, as it is 4 A. Not specific discussions with that specific question, 5 known, the Survivor Advisory Panel, and although you 5 but, clearly, over the -- over -- when it was formed and 6 became the inaugural chair, I don't think you were 6 when I was interviewed, it was, "Why do we need one? 7 involved in actually setting up SAP; is that right? 7 What's the importance of it?", and, throughout, it was 8 A. No, not at all. 8 stressed the importance of including survivors and 9 Q. So your knowledge of how and why it came to be set up 9 victims in the -- in an understanding of legislation, 10 comes from other documents that you have subsequently 10 policy, procedures and perceptions and all sorts. They 11 seen? 11 just saw it as a key role that was -- that was now 12 A. Just that one key document, yes. 12 needed. 13 Q. If we have a look, please, on screen at CHC001937, 13 Q. If we actually call up on screen your statement, at 14 I think you were provided with this document, when it 14 CHC001934_003, we will see what are called the terms of 15 comes up, and we go to the first page. 15 reference for the SAP. 16 A. Yes. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Mr Pearson, who we have just heard from, who is the 17 Q. We can see there the purpose was to ensure that the 18 chair of the NCSC, provided you with a briefing paper to 18 commission receive appropriate and timely information 19 understand the background to the creation of SAP? 19 and advice from the survivor perspective that will help 20 A. Yes, that's correct. 20 inform the work of the NCSC and subsequently the 21 Q. In short, in June 2014, the NCSC approved the 21 safeguarding policies and practices within the 22 establishment of what was then called a task and finish 22 Catholic Church. 23 group to shape and advance the proposal of the Survivor 23 The remit has five subsections, if I can call them 24 Advisory Group, SAP as it became? 24 that: the provision of advice; offering knowledge and 25 A. That's correct, yes. 25 insight into the experience of those who have been hurt;

Page 151 Page 152 38 (Pages 149 to 152) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 making a positive contribution; informing/influencing 1 leaflets that have been produced and asked for our 2 the work of the commission; and providing input on the 2 perspective on that, which we then took control of and 3 commission's media and communications strategy, for 3 actually produced our own leaflets, but it is a two-way 4 example, the annual report. 4 process, so we might be asked to review things or look 5 It is all well and good to say that, but just help 5 at things, but, likewise, we would put forward things, 6 us in practice: what does the SAP do? 6 "Actually, have a look at this", and the first meeting 7 A. I think the summary, the function of the SAP, if I could 7 that I chaired, we had a kind of a roundtable discussion 8 go to that in my statement? 8 of what did we think were the key issues that we would 9 Q. Yes. 9 like to be raised and discussed, and we -- I kind of 10 A. My memory is not as good as it used to be. 10 divided those up between the different panel members to 11 Q. You will find it at paragraph 7, I think, Mr Marshall. 11 kind of lead on them, as a group. That became our work 12 A. Yes, 7, page 5. So advise recommendations on matters 12 plan, which you have had a copy of and which has evolved 13 relevant to victims and survivors, knowledge and insight 13 over the -- 14 into the experience of abuse, which I think is a real 14 Q. Pause there. We will come to the work plan. It might 15 key one, and that's one of the aspects that I've seen 15 help everyone understand the work of SAP if we can 16 make a real difference and a mind-set kind of change, 16 understand a little about the makeup of the panel. 17 actually hearing from victim/survivors first hand of 17 There's obviously you, as the chair. How many members, 18 their experiences and what they think and they feel and 18 how many survivors? Give us an idea of the breakdown -- 19 the way they perceive and see things. That's really 19 A. There are a total of eight SAP members, including 20 invaluable, and the most powerful influence that we 20 myself. Some of those are survivors of abuse, some are 21 have. 21 survivors of abuse who are now professionals or experts 22 Positive contributions to improve responses 22 working in that field as well. We have survivors who 23 regarding victim disclosures and church support. 23 were abused as children within the church, outside of 24 Inform and influence work. So sometimes we are 24 the church, but who went to church. We have a lady who 25 given a particular topic, perhaps the "Hurt by Abuse" 25 was actually abused as a member of the religious as an

Page 153 Page 154

1 adult. She was abused. So we have got quite 1 a Catholic to do it. If you had the necessary skills or 2 a cross-section. 2 experience, then so be it. 3 Then we have professionals who have worked with 3 Q. So you're not looking to fulfil a quotient of four 4 perpetrators as well as victims/survivors, worked in the 4 survivors who happen to have been Catholics, two of whom 5 police role with survivors and various different 5 are now practising, two of whom who aren't, or two who 6 contexts, so we try to capture -- we appreciate that you 6 want nothing to do with Catholicism? It is not set out 7 can't have a group represent the interests of all 7 in that kind of -- 8 survivors because it's such a broad spectrum of views 8 A. Not at all. As the chair, I'm not a practising 9 and ideas and perceptions, but actually, I think we have 9 Catholic, I'm a Christian but I practice in a different 10 done quite well in getting a really good cross-section, 10 denomination. My experience in Northern Ireland on 11 and they're not all from the church. There are some 11 their equivalent of what is now the Truth Project here, 12 with no faith, some with a different faith, some who 12 the acknowledgement forum, I heard lots of survivors in 13 celebrate the Christian faith in a different 13 Catholic settings and my view of the Catholic Church at 14 denomination, so it's not specific -- 14 times was not very high from what I'd heard. So 15 Q. Can I just pick up on that. The fact they are not all 15 I didn't come from a pro-Catholic environment. But 16 members of the church, is that by design or was that 16 likewise, I met lots of really lovely Catholic people -- 17 a deliberate decision in appointing the members to make 17 survivors, victims and people involved. But it was 18 sure there were nonreligious, if I can call them that, 18 having that balance across, I think. I think we hit 19 on the -- 19 that balance. It's certainly not pro-Catholic, if 20 A. I think, looking at the terms -- from the document 20 that's the right way to put it. 21 regarding the creation of SAP, and survivors -- there 21 Q. Let me ask you this: is it an anti-Catholic? 22 was a group of survivors who advised on that in the very 22 A. No, I don't think it is. But I think we're very honest 23 first instance, it's really -- I think it was identified 23 and, if there are things we don't agree with or we think 24 it was more people with the experience and the 24 that's not quite right, or we don't think our voice is 25 understanding rather than being -- you didn't have to be 25 being listened to, then we're not afraid to say that.

Page 155 Page 156 39 (Pages 153 to 156) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 And that's with those within the church and those 1 A. I think they refer to the actual agreement which I have 2 outside the church, they are happy to say what they 2 supplied sets out what it is. But, mainly, I think it's 3 think. 3 the fact that you work in an arena where very personal 4 Q. You have told us about the makeup. How long are panel 4 and confidential information may be discussed and is, in 5 members appointed for? 5 any kind of role where you might be privy to 6 A. I think it's initially for three years, with an 6 confidential agreement, that you safeguard that 7 extension for another three years. 7 information and deal with it in an appropriate way. 8 Q. If I understand it right, the Survivor Advisory Panel 8 Q. There's nothing in the confidentiality agreement that 9 meets four times a year? 9 precludes a member of SAP speaking out against the 10 A. It meets -- there are four scheduled meetings a year, 10 church if that's what they felt it was the appropriate 11 but a lot of them get involved with other initiatives 11 thing to do? 12 and things falling out of the SAP work throughout that. 12 A. No, I think there is a phrase at the bottom: 13 So it might be training or helping with -- our new 13 "The safeguarding of children/adults at risk remains 14 initiative is a pastoral support -- not a pastoral -- 14 paramount. Nothing in this section prevents the passing 15 well, we are involved with the pastoral support service, 15 of information to the relevant authorities where 16 Safe Spaces as well, but that was in their own time, in 16 a member believes individuals are at significant risk in 17 addition. 17 the church processes and the NCSC have failed to respond 18 Q. In relation to the panel members, in the briefing note 18 appropriately. This rule does not prevent you passing 19 that you were given by Mr Pearson, there is reference 19 information about panel practices and procedures to 20 there to panel members signing 20 a professional legal adviser in the course of obtaining 21 a confidentiality/conflict of interest agreement. 21 legal advice or in compliance with a legal obligation." 22 A. Yes. 22 Q. So it is not an inhibition on whistleblowing, to call it 23 Q. Can you help us with why it is that panel members sign 23 colloquially, or anything of that nature? 24 a confidentiality agreement? What is it that they are 24 A. No. 25 keeping confidential? 25 Q. One of the things you said at the beginning of your

Page 157 Page 158

1 evidence really was how key it was that the experiences 1 Q. Putting the SAP away-day to one side and your attendance 2 of the survivors is conveyed -- 2 once a year at the NCSC, at your meetings every three 3 A. Yes. 3 months effectively, or there or thereabouts, what do you 4 Q. -- to the NCSC. I want to try and understand how, 4 do after a meeting to ensure that, whatever is raised at 5 practically, that is done? SAP meets four times a year? 5 the meeting gets fed back to the NCSC? 6 A. Yes. 6 A. We have detailed minutes obtained of the meeting. The 7 Q. How is it that the survivors are engaged? How is their 7 work plan which we work to is updated, which Mr Pearson 8 message conveyed to the NCSC? 8 gets a copy of that. Key issues, even if I can't attend 9 A. Well, I think it was -- I have forgotten which year it 9 the NCSC meeting, I supply a little update briefing 10 was, but it is in my statement. The NCSC had a training 10 document of all the key points. And on the SAP is 11 day and we were given the programme for that day. So we 11 a link member from the NCSC who will be attending all 12 ran -- nearly everyone on the SAP did a presentation or 12 the NCSC meetings. So if I'm not there, they have also 13 undertook a section which highlights different aspects 13 got that input as well, along with CSAS, who also have 14 that we had highlighted as a group that we thought it 14 a link member on the SAP now as well. 15 was important that the NCSC were aware of. 15 Q. Do you get any sense there is any difficulty with lines 16 Q. So the away-day was October 2017, according to your 16 of communication between SAP and the NCSC or NCSC and 17 statement? 17 SAP? 18 A. Yes. 18 A. No. I mean, a lot is through email, but often I can 19 Q. Does all of the NCSC attend? Is attendance compulsory? 19 ring Chris Pearson on the phone or have conversations, 20 A. I don't think attendance was compulsory, but I think we 20 and if issues arise, like they did when we produced the 21 had quite a lot of people attend -- well, they did. 21 "Hurt by Abuse" leaflets, I was able to resolve -- after 22 I mean, I attend NCSC meetings. I have an obligation to 22 the meeting there was some differences of opinion, but 23 attend at least one every year and more if I am able to. 23 I was able to get hold of Chris and resolve those and 24 There was a majority of the NCSC were there. There were 24 work it through. 25 a few absences. 25 Q. I'm going to look at "Hurt by Abuse" and the redesign of

Page 159 Page 160 40 (Pages 157 to 160) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 that a little later on in your evidence, if I may. 1 that document every meeting would be added to, things 2 In the summary of the SAP work, at paragraph 7 at 2 might come off it if they'd been completed, or we'd 3 the end, you say that SAP is -- will necessarily perform 3 changed our minds. But it is a kind of a record of -- 4 the function of a "critical friend". 4 all the versions of it was kept and this is the very 5 A. Yes. 5 latest version from our last meeting in -- actually, 6 Q. Help us, please: what do you mean by performing the role 6 that says "March 2019", and the last one 7 of a critical friend? 7 was October 2019. 8 A. Well, the spirit of why the church is there and its 8 Q. I think this would have been provided to us before then. 9 organisation and being part of it is important. We are 9 If we can go to page 3, which has got two boxes on it, 10 advising the NCSC, so we are part of that organisation. 10 can I go to the second box, please. We will see, 11 But -- so in that way, we are a friend, but, likewise, 11 I hope, at the top there, number 10, reference to work 12 if there's things that we don't think are right or they 12 in relation to "Hurt by Abuse" which was redesigned? 13 need changing or we need to revise or review or rethink, 13 A. Yes. 14 then we are going to be critical, but say it in a nice 14 Q. Back to some basics, firstly, Mr Marshall: what was 15 way. 15 "Hurt by Abuse"? 16 Q. Can you give us an example? 16 A. It was -- a leaflet had already been produced to help 17 A. Well, I could probably use the "Hurt by Abuse" leaflet. 17 advise survivors/victims if they wanted to report their 18 Can I use that? 18 concerns, and we were initially kind of shown the 19 Q. Let's look at that now. Chair, it may be sensible, just 19 initial version of it and, "Do you think this is okay? 20 give me one moment, to pull up on screen, please, 20 We are thinking of changing it", and whatever else. We 21 CHC001935. It is also, I think, behind your tab 2. 21 suggested some changes and whatever else. The leaflet 22 This is a work plan, I think -- was it devised by you? 22 then came back to us. But then we came to the 23 A. What happened, at our initial meeting we sat around the 23 conclusion, "Actually, we are starting with something 24 table and decided which areas were important, allocate 24 that you've given us. It would be much better if we 25 them to different people to take the lead for, and then 25 went away with a blank page and we actually came back

Page 161 Page 162

1 with what victims and survivors actually thought was 1 even though it wasn't corporate or it wasn't as 2 important to include in a leaflet". So we did that. 2 professionally produced, but it was what victims and 3 We produced two leaflets. One is a guide for 3 survivors thought would be effective and get the message 4 victims and survivors and the other is for those 4 over. So that's perhaps an example of that working in 5 receiving complaints or concerns. 5 practice. 6 Q. Right. 6 Q. The leaflet was to be given to a victim if they went to 7 A. We then gave that with the idea that that would then be 7 report abuse to the church? 8 published in the format that we'd given it. Then it 8 A. No, when they were originally brought out, they were to 9 went to a design company, and the design company then 9 be kind of left in the back of the church, so that they 10 came back with a format for SAP that, actually, the 10 were there. But there was an issue about those -- some 11 survivors didn't really like, because they thought, 11 churches didn't display them or there weren't copies of 12 "It's completely changed, you've altered the format. 12 them and things like that. 13 It's not victim/survivor friendly in that way". They 13 Q. One thing I was going to ask you was, how does the work 14 could understand why the changes were made, but they 14 of SAP sort of get disseminated to back of the parish 15 preferred their kind of simpler, more simplistic 15 church or to the orders? Do you know, practically, how 16 leaflet, which they thought for a victim/survivor, and 16 the comments that SAP makes end up being disseminated at 17 from their point of view, was appropriate. 17 ground level? 18 Now, some of them were saying, "Well, we have told 18 A. I mean, primarily, and I think this is sometimes an 19 you what kind of leaflet we would like, we have given it 19 issue, SAP really -- we are advising the National 20 to you, but you have come back to us with a completely 20 Catholic Safeguarding Commission. We are a subgroup of 21 different thing. Are you really listening to us?" So 21 them, and we are primarily advising them. By advising 22 that was when I had the conversations with Chris Pearson 22 them, then CSAS and others may then communicate. That's 23 and talked through those changes with the others 23 how our message may filter down. 24 involved as well and it then was decided that actually 24 However, SAP are beginning to take on a bit of a new 25 we would go back to the design that we had come up with, 25 role in a way. They are undertaking local training

Page 163 Page 164 41 (Pages 161 to 164) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 sessions and training for bishops and things like that. 1 was highlighted, that, actually, it is very difficult, 2 So as well as advising the NCSC, also members of SAP 2 in your own diocese, telling people about your abuse, 3 have also advised others, including the 3 but, actually, if you went to another diocese, it might 4 Pontifical Commission in Rome as well. 4 be easier. 5 Q. You mentioned there training that is provided by SAP, 5 But it was an idea that SAP would come alongside -- 6 and I think you said in your statement at page 10 that 6 particularly SAP survivors come alongside other 7 recently you received a request to provide training for 7 survivors in other dioceses and help and encourage them 8 the Westminster commission on a survivor's perspective. 8 in that training role. That's what we see as a key 9 That's just one of 22 dioceses coming to SAP for 9 thing, that face-to-face explaining and training 10 assistance. Is there perhaps a sense it is a bit 10 tailored to the audience that you are in front of as 11 ad hoc? 11 well. So whether it is safeguarding coordinators or it 12 A. That is one of the issues that we raised at our last 12 is bishops or it is whoever, it was appropriate. 13 meeting, which is on the October version of the work 13 Q. Although, as it stands, it's up to the diocese to come 14 plan, that we understood the importance of training. We 14 to SAP and say, "We would like you to do some training"; 15 thought face-to-face training was much better than 15 there is no national programme involving SAP or anything 16 a video, because you could lose control and ownership of 16 of that nature? 17 it. That face-to-face training was the training that 17 A. No, I think it is something that Baroness Hollins is 18 had the most impact. But, likewise, it was a huge -- of 18 undertaking, a review of SAP. 19 the members of SAP who were prepared to do that, that 19 Q. She is. We are going to hear from her tomorrow. 20 was quite a big commitment, and although many were 20 A. That's one of the areas that we are kind of looking at, 21 prepared to do it and whatever else, we thought, 21 because it is not a direct function of SAP to do that. 22 actually, in the future, our idea was to identify local 22 It is something additional that we have taken on but we 23 survivors for dioceses, or others who would be prepared 23 really think is very worthwhile. 24 to do similar training in the diocese -- perhaps not in 24 Q. Can I stick with some of the work that is in the work 25 their own diocese, because that was another issue that 25 plan at CHC001935, if we have still got that. If we can

Page 165 Page 166

1 go to just the first page of that document and highlight 1 sometimes, the length of time it takes for these things 2 that so I can read it, can we see there at number 2, as 2 to actually come to fruition? 3 at the date of the inaugural SAP meeting, the topic 3 A. I think it's frustrating, but it's something that really 4 under consideration was development of pastoral support 4 struck me. I had this impression from coming outside of 5 service for survivors/victims. It says underneath that 5 the Catholic Church: the Pope says something happens, he 6 this has now become a joint initiative with the 6 tells the bishops, the bishops make it happen. I found 7 Anglican Church and the Welsh Church, what's called 7 out that, in reality, most of the power actually sits 8 commonly the Safe Spaces Project? 8 with the bishops rather than the Pope. And then, within 9 A. Yes. 9 the diocese, they might all do it in a slightly 10 Q. You can see there, as at March, it was ongoing and it is 10 different way and then you've got the religious 11 still ongoing now, as at, I think, October 2019? 11 congregations and all these other aspects that all have 12 A. Yes, the latest -- well, four SAP members were involved 12 to come together. 13 in the procurement process for the person who was going 13 It is frustrating, but it's something that -- 14 to supply it, and at our last SAP meeting they had 14 I think the other reason for its delay is, if you are 15 a confidential meeting with Maureen McGrath, the project 15 going to do it, it's got to be done properly. There's 16 director, because they're now looking at the interview 16 no point rushing it in and then it failing. It's a very 17 stage, which is likely to be in November 2019. 17 difficult thing to evolve. We had a meeting with 18 Q. May I make this observation to you, Mr Marshall: we are 18 Maureen McGrath and we did a big, "What do 19 now well over three years on since your first meeting, 19 victims/survivors actually want?". Some want different 20 and Safe Spaces still is not yet in force. I appreciate 20 things. What's the most appropriate? What's already 21 you don't hold the purse or anything of that nature. 21 been provided in other areas? So it was filling those 22 But one of the criticisms and themes running throughout 22 gaps and making it fit for purpose, really. That was 23 this is it takes an inordinately long time for the 23 really very tricky saying, how could you actually 24 church to do anything, Safe Spaces potentially being an 24 provide this around the country and some geographical 25 example. How do the members of SAP feel about, 25 areas may need a different response to something else?

Page 167 Page 168 42 (Pages 165 to 168) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 So, as a national one, how does that work? 1 going to Rome, and he wanted to talk to us about that. 2 But it is frustrating the time it takes for these 2 Q. I think, on that occasion, he met with a number of 3 things to happen. But I think the SAP in the -- the 3 members of the SAP; is that right? Then at the 4 four meetings a year, I think, personally, the group 4 conclusion of that meeting, he wanted some thoughts 5 have actually come on and actually made quite a few 5 distilled into a written document? 6 considerable changes since they have been in position, 6 A. Yes. I mean, he came, and I thought he was going to do 7 influencing Cardinal Nichols, but also influencing the 7 a lot of talking, but, actually, he did a lot of 8 PCPM in Rome as well. 8 listening. He sat there and he listened patiently to 9 Q. I am going to come to that. 9 everyone around the table, and said, "I'm going to Rome. 10 A. Sorry. 10 From a victim/survivor perspective, I had to think of 11 Q. It is all right. I just want to ask you about one thing 11 six things, a list of six, "What would be your top six 12 because there is a tendency sometimes to concentrate on 12 things?". So we had that kind of table discussion which 13 how the message is disseminated to the dioceses and into 13 went on for well over an hour and, at the end of it, we 14 the parishes. What about SAP's involvement with the 14 decided that I would pull together those key thoughts 15 religious orders? Can you help explain about how SAP 15 and we might add to them and send them to him, which we 16 engages with the orders? 16 did. Some of the comments we made, he did a little 17 A. Specifically, I suppose we haven't, but then our role is 17 video which was on the Catholic website before he went 18 to advise the NCSC so they then pass it on. So that's 18 to Rome and he actually took direct lifts from some of 19 our specific role and remit at the moment. 19 the comments the victims and survivors had made, so he 20 Q. You mentioned there the involvement of SAP with 20 clearly had been listening. Then he came back to us 21 Cardinal Nichols. Can I turn to page 4 of that work 21 in -- 22 plan at CHC001935_004. I think it is the bottom 22 Q. I will come back to post the conference? 23 section. Is this the position, that on 4 January this 23 A. Sorry. 24 year, did Cardinal Nichols attend a SAP meeting? 24 Q. Had he been to engage with SAP prior to the January '19 25 A. He asked if he could attend a SAP meeting because he was 25 meeting?

Page 169 Page 170

1 A. No. 1 which fell under "Communication, training or victim 2 Q. Observing him listen to the survivors and take away 2 focus", and these are our kind of bullet point comments 3 their thoughts, did you get any sense of how important 3 that people actually made during those discussions and 4 it was for the survivors who had met him that he had 4 things like that, that they then fell under -- so the 5 attended? 5 comments were made which then fell under the key 6 A. I thought it was -- they thought it was very, very 6 thoughts, the six key thoughts. 7 important. They were very pleased that he had. But the 7 Q. The top one, really, probably encapsulates it: 8 thing I think impressed them the most was the fact -- 8 "Most victim/survivors simply want to be believed, 9 what I would describe as his humility. He sat there and 9 have their pain acknowledged and receive a sincere 10 it was first-name terms. He just sat and listened. 10 apology. Financial considerations are often not even an 11 Q. So the six key things, to use your phrase -- in fact, 11 issue." 12 can we have a look at that document; CHC001936. Chair, 12 Can you help, is SAP doing any work about the role 13 it is behind your tab 4. Was this a document that he, 13 of apologies and what guidance should or shouldn't be 14 as far as you're aware, actually took to Rome with him 14 given when a person who reports an allegation actually 15 for the Protection of Minors Conference? 15 wants an apology? Are you getting involved in something 16 A. Yes. 16 like that? 17 Q. We will have a look, please, at the first key theme, 17 A. Well, yes, through the -- the other "Hurt by Abuse" 18 that of communication. You have included there: 18 leaflet, the advice is about apologising, accepting, 19 "Respond with honesty, humility and openness of 19 listening. One of their key messages, particularly when 20 heart." 20 they do tell their personal stories, is emphasising the 21 A. Yes. 21 role and the fact that if people say sorry and they 22 Q. The "Comments for clarification" box, help us with what 22 listen, that that's really crucial. Often compensation, 23 that was trying to remind the cardinal about that he 23 they describe it as a bit of a myth, really. 24 takes away with him? 24 Compensation is often a last resort because no-one is 25 A. The comments were -- we identified the six key things 25 listening, so that's the only course of action we now

Page 171 Page 172 43 (Pages 169 to 172) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 have. But if people actually grasp the nettle and 1 broken." 2 actually listen to us, they might find that actually 2 That's obviously words of some of the people on the 3 that -- we can resolve this. But if you ignore us and 3 panel -- 4 just push it off and don't listen, then that's often our 4 A. Yes. 5 recourse we have. That's what they tell me and the 5 Q. -- trying to convey them. Can I just ask you this: do 6 experience I have had with speaking to survivors. 6 you get a sense of whether there has been any change 7 Q. Funnily enough, you put that in your sixth bullet point, 7 from the victims and survivors' perspective of perhaps 8 if we can go to page 3 of that document. Under the 8 things have been done not so well in the past, but it is 9 theme "Loss of victim/survivor focus": 9 better now or are there still problems occurring now? 10 "Don't assume or tell survivors what they need -- 10 A. I think it is work in progress. I think progress has 11 ask them -- may be surprised." 11 been made. They do see a change. They do feel their 12 On the right-hand side of the table: 12 voice is being listened to, certainly through the SAP. 13 "Compensation in majority of cases is not the 13 But there's still a way to go in some areas. I think 14 motivation for disclosure but it may become so when seen 14 it's usually those are kind of anecdotal stories was, 15 as the only apparent way to make the church listen/take 15 "I went to this church and there was nothing on 16 action. 16 safeguarding or there was no leaflet for 'Hurt by Abuse' 17 "If dealt with correctly from outset may see 17 or I heard a parishioner say, 'Why are we having to do 18 compensation as less of an issue if appropriate 18 safeguarding training? We don't have those problems 19 victim/survivor focused response including support. 19 here'", or things like that, but they are kind of 20 "Want justice and support having experienced a sense 20 anecdotal stories. I think the main -- the big picture 21 of unfairness and abuse of position of power." 21 is that people are listening and, the phrase earlier, 22 Just finally, a little further down: 22 they do "get it", but there are some who are still 23 "It is a scandal that some victims are apparently 23 struggling with that, believing that certain people are 24 still confronted by responses totally devoid of 24 capable of abuse, which isn't unusual, really. 25 integrity or compassion. Lives have and are still being 25 Q. Final matter in that document, please, on page 2, under

Page 173 Page 174

1 "Theme of communication": 1 it's not as a highlight as it was. But I don't know. 2 "To demonstrate practically true acknowledgement of 2 That was the perception of the people on the group. So 3 the issues: 3 sometimes it's perceptions and reality; sometimes it's 4 "Be honest. 4 with communication people can understand better. 5 "Say sorry and mean it. 5 Q. When the cardinal came back from the conference in Rome, 6 "Exhibit zero tolerance of abuse or any type of 6 I think you said he was due to give an update? 7 coverup." 7 A. Yes. 8 Chair, you will recall we have already looked at 8 Q. Did he come back to the SAP and speak? 9 this phrase with a witness earlier today, on the 9 A. He came -- on the latest work plan, he came 10 right-hand side of the page, that "The church drive the 10 back July 2019. He came to the meeting again. He spent 11 policy response, not the insurers". Is there still 11 an hour there. He told us what had gone on with the 12 a sense among the victims and survivors that, when it 12 cardinal's discussions with the Pope and his feelings 13 comes to apologising, the concern is really not to do 13 and whatever else, and he'd also met some of the 14 anything that jeopardizes insurance or civil claims? 14 survivors in a meeting in Spain with all the bishops -- 15 Can you help us with that, Mr Marshall? 15 Q. In Valladolid, yes? 16 A. I think there's certainly a perception a reluctance to 16 A. -- at which three of the survivors had spoken, and it 17 apologise is from an insurance perspective. That's the 17 was really interesting seeing the interaction between 18 perception. I can see there's more than one side to the 18 the survivors and the cardinal there. There was some 19 account of why you might -- you would take advice from 19 laughing and joking and things about him making coffee 20 insurers. There's certainly a perception of survivors 20 for them in Valladolid and things like that. 21 that, "Actually, listen to us". 21 Q. Without wishing to trivialise it, though, it sounds, 22 Q. Mr Pearson, when asked about this quote, said he thought 22 actually, him coming to these meetings is actually quite 23 this was a problem of the past. Do you agree with that? 23 important from the victims' and survivors' perspective? 24 A. I think the church has got a lot better, and we have 24 A. It is essential. I think one of the points on 25 heard lots of apologies, which is great. So perhaps 25 "Demonstrate practically true acknowledgement of the

Page 175 Page 176 44 (Pages 173 to 176) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 issues: be honest, say sorry". If you are going to say 1 A. That's ongoing, ongoing work. 2 something, then follow it up with action, don't just say 2 Q. Help us with what is, in a nutshell, the work that's 3 it. I think he really did. And he wasn't in a rush to 3 ongoing. 4 go. He was quite happy sitting there, talking with them 4 A. One of the key six thoughts was: don't leave God out of 5 and discussing the issues. So for me, I thought it was 5 the equation. These are people who have a faith and 6 a very genuine, humble response to the survivors there, 6 a belief, so don't leave God out of it, he is the key -- 7 and the survivors took great comfort and were really 7 well, the most crucial point for many people. So this 8 encouraged by that and spoke very highly of him 8 was all about survivors helping in forming special 9 afterwards. 9 services and liturgy for helping survivors coming to 10 Q. Two final topics, please. We have looked at work that's 10 terms with the abuse in that setting, and so, again, 11 been done. What about work that is going to be done? 11 people had put forward plans for services and things 12 Can you help? Are the SAP going to be involved in any 12 which, actually, when the survivors reviewed them, said, 13 way in the review that the NCSC have announced and are 13 "Actually, that's not really appropriate. You need to 14 currently about to undertake? 14 do it this way". So there is a lot of work now for 15 A. I think one of the key parts of it is that survivors are 15 appropriate services and liturgy which links in with 16 going to be represented on that review. That's super. 16 abuse and survivors. 17 As you are going to hear from Baroness Hollins, there is 17 Q. Does SAP get involved in any way in individual 18 the review of the SAP, so I think there is other work in 18 complaints? 19 relation to that which we will also be involved with. 19 A. No. Specifically, there is a policy now that anything 20 On the work plan, there's new work on there, item 19, 20 is referred straight to CSAS or the NCSC. 21 which I think is on your -- 21 Q. I think finally, I would just like to ask you about 22 Q. I don't know if it is on the document that we are able 22 a comment you make in your statement where you say at 23 to call up -- oh, it is, yes. Can I go to the final 23 paragraph 8 -- obviously SAP has been developed over the 24 page, forgive me, page 4 of CHC001935. Number 19 in the 24 last three and a bit years, but with only four meetings 25 bottom box. 25 a year and the members being volunteers and an ongoing

Page 177 Page 178

1 selection process, it is only in the last year or so 1 Q. That's what I wanted to ask, because Mr Pearson also 2 it's really found its feet and been able to provide more 2 said that SAP -- sorry, CSAS policies were "robustly 3 support to the NCSC. 3 scrutinised by both the NCSC and SAP". I was wondering 4 Today, I think it was, that Mr Pearson said SAP 4 if you could give us an example of where there was such 5 was -- the "whole essence of SAP was to ensure the 5 robust scrutiny? 6 voices of victims and survivors would be part of the 6 A. They have a lot of policies. 7 whole process". Do you think that actually that's been 7 Q. They do. 8 achieved or is being achieved? 8 A. We did have them and we did look at them. The one in 9 A. I think "being achieved" is the word. I think it's the 9 particular was -- we highlighted at our last meeting, in 10 people on the group getting to know each other. There's 10 fact, and that was where perpetrators or suspected 11 a lovely synergy. We have now got another -- a new 11 perpetrators and victims/survivors worshipped in the 12 member and she is fitting in really, really well. But 12 same church and how sometimes the policy was all about 13 as people get to know each other and trust each other, 13 the protection or the managing of the offender or 14 actually, we are able to have those conversations. And 14 suspected offender and forgetting, "Hold on a minute, 15 also I think, having had personal stories told to the 15 the survivor is in the same church, what impact does 16 NCSC, particularly at Valladolid recently, I have seen 16 that have?". So we have recently reviewed that and, 17 a complete sea change in a particular individual who now 17 although some changes have been made, we have some more 18 gets it, and it's taken that time for people -- they 18 to be made as well. So it is like an ongoing process. 19 hear it, but it doesn't always go in the first time. 19 But there are some we really have looked at and others, 20 But when they hear it from a survivor face to face in an 20 perhaps, we haven't looked at in as much detail because 21 appropriate way, all of a sudden the penny drops. And 21 they are not specifically relating to our work. 22 they are making a difference. We look back at all the 22 MS CAREY: Mr Marshall, that's all I wanted to ask. Please 23 things they do and get involved with, which are a lot 23 just wait there for one moment. 24 more than just coming to the SAP meetings, they are 24 Chair, is there anything you or the panel would like 25 making a difference. 25 to ask Mr Marshall?

Page 179 Page 180 45 (Pages 177 to 180) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019

1 THE CHAIR: No, we have no questions. Thank you, 1 Examination by MR SAAD ...... 82 2 Mr Marshall. 2 3 A. Thank you. 3 MR DAVID JOHN MARSHALL ( affirmed) ...... 149 4 (The witness withdrew) 4 5 MS CAREY: Thank you. Chair, I think tomorrow we can revert 5 Examination by MS CAREY ...... 150 6 to the 10.30 am start, if that is convenient. 6 7 THE CHAIR: Thank you. 7 8 MS CAREY: Thank you very much. 8 9 (4.30 pm) 9 10 (The hearing was adjourned to 10 11 Friday, 1 November 2019 at 10.30 am) 11 12 12 13 13 14 I N D E X 14 15 15 16 MR DANNY SULLIVAN (sworn) ...... 1 16 17 17 18 Examination by MR SAAD ...... 1 18 19 19 20 MR STEPHEN SPEAR (sworn) ...... 53 20 21 21 22 Examination by MR SAAD ...... 53 22 23 23 24 MR CHRISTOPHER PEARSON (sworn) ...... 82 24 25 25

Page 181 Page 182

46 (Pages 181 to 182) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 183

A 174:24 175:6 acknowledged 40:5 adjust 112:13 114:21 115:2,3,8 A/1 84:15 178:10,16 48:17 172:9 adjustment 113:2 150:5 151:5,24 A711 147:10 Abuse' 174:16 acknowledgement adjustments 152:3 157:8 Abbot 98:20 abused 25:1 33:5 156:12 175:2 112:19 115:6 advocacy 92:3 ability 67:15 97:22 40:8 68:9 69:10 176:25 administrative advocating 69:19 148:7,7 75:22 78:20 ACPO 150:12 51:1 affair 40:7 able 12:23 16:1 154:23,25 155:1 act 120:10 132:5 administratively affect 128:7 31:13 37:12 62:7 abuser 6:4 150:15 41:11 affirmed 149:23 64:23,24 65:4,10 abusers 68:4 acting 82:19 119:25 adopt 100:11 182:3 66:24 75:20 77:2 abusing 55:22 56:5 action 10:11 45:23 adopted 100:9 afraid 156:25 81:23 89:8 91:4 56:9 68:22 71:8 59:3 91:6 97:23 137:3 afternoon 131:15 102:19 108:17 abusive 34:13 124:12 137:20 Adrian 6:24 12:25 agencies 70:19 113:1 136:14 academic 36:22 172:25 173:16 13:4 16:19 21:17 108:1 119:3 138:8 139:15 accept 113:14 177:2 25:21 44:9,10,12 122:10 124:9 144:8 159:23 118:14 130:6 actions 39:13 48:3 44:13,15,19 130:25 131:2,3 160:21,23 177:22 acceptable 20:3 64:7 76:24 77:16 Adrian's 16:23 agency 43:5,10 179:2,14 138:17 activate 45:24 21:22 agenda 55:14 80:10 absences 159:25 acceptance 59:20 activities 119:13 adult 40:10 134:11 ago 52:14 62:4 absolutely 47:6 138:6 acts 41:5 54:22 155:1 87:24 93:6 106:17 55:15 57:19 64:13 accepted 27:1 84:1 actual 8:19 158:1 adults 40:8 84:7,8 143:2 67:9 113:13 86:8 ad 165:11 129:18 133:24 agree 3:6,24 5:8 abuse 6:2,3 15:7 accepting 172:18 add 76:25 83:19 advance 151:23 17:7,8 40:22 50:6 16:15 19:21,25 access 66:7 119:12 133:24 170:15 advantages 146:9 65:7 84:22 101:22 20:1,1 21:14,24 accident 42:12 add-on 134:14 advert 2:3 103:25 122:6 27:16,24 28:5 accompli 57:14 added 162:1 advice 20:5,13,18 127:18,21 128:3 33:13 34:2 35:2,7 140:5 addition 45:10 95:2 40:25 73:20 90:7 130:16 140:14 35:13,22 36:1,11 account 11:17 35:3 96:4 119:6 125:17 141:2 152:19,24 141:4,5 143:13 36:17,17,25 37:24 61:9 175:19 129:15 157:17 158:21 172:18 144:3,14 156:23 40:1,13,18 41:8 accountability 20:8 additional 85:18 175:19 175:23 47:16,25 48:21,23 29:19 166:22 advise 47:22 64:7 agreed 3:14 5:10 52:17,24 54:6 accountable 12:3 address 38:23 65:4 153:12 43:22 45:12,23 70:4 71:4 74:19 28:17 72:17 73:15 55:25 61:24 68:19 162:17 169:18 46:1 64:7 68:3,25 75:21 76:19 77:22 90:4 71:16 78:1 103:5 advised 20:8 21:15 97:1 100:17 78:12 80:22 93:2 accuracy 100:24 124:12 142:9 38:1 59:17,20 101:13 105:17 107:24 121:1 accused 36:1 41:12 addressed 35:7 109:20 138:5 113:3,5 144:5 123:8 128:15 70:25 98:22 135:14 155:22 165:3 agreement 83:17 129:17 130:2 achieve 18:4 55:3,8 143:15 adviser 158:20 157:21,24 158:1,6 142:20 144:13,17 56:22 63:12 71:13 addressing 23:22 advising 161:10 158:8 144:18 149:11 achieved 56:22 76:17 77:11 164:19,21,21 agrees 100:18 150:11,13,25 63:11 143:19,20 132:18 165:2 ahead 55:6 153:14,25 154:20 179:8,8,9 adequate 67:18 advisor 1:20 41:2 aim 8:5,13 64:21 154:21 160:21,25 achievements 55:8 adequately 65:11 advisory 48:7,18 aimed 101:8 161:17 162:12,15 Achieving 103:19 65:13 64:15 85:14 86:2 aims 80:3 106:4 164:7 166:2 acknowledge 74:16 adjourned 181:10 89:14,18 93:4 144:11 172:17 173:21 74:17 adjournment 94:21 95:12 105:7 Albeit 87:2

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 184 alert 123:24 Ampleforth 61:18 apologising 172:18 148:17 158:18 125:8 133:23 alienated 39:9 61:21 97:20 98:14 175:13 approval 86:10 135:7,10 136:3 alive 130:3 98:15 99:4,9 apology 34:19 137:14 139:21 140:25 allegation 16:15 analyses 70:1 172:10,15 approve 10:3 142:2 145:20 30:25 62:20 analysis 2:21 49:2 appalled 36:24 approved 8:18 arrest 36:2 107:24 113:23,25 144:15,16,25 apparent 173:15 72:21 85:21,24 article 34:8,21 36:5 114:6 116:9 145:4,5 apparently 41:11 86:11,17,20 36:8,14 38:15,17 117:17 125:1,8,25 and/or 109:1 173:23 137:12 151:21 49:24,25 50:2,3 128:15 147:1 Anderson 25:22 appearing 131:5 approved' 75:6 50:12 172:14 49:12 appears 128:12 approving 35:25 articles 38:19 76:12 allegations 19:14 anecdotal 174:14 appetite 68:14 approximately ascertain 65:10 36:11,18 39:17 174:20 application 31:7,8 64:4 70:2 41:8 113:18 Anglican 23:7 120:2 April 115:17 asked 7:19 27:12 115:12 116:11 167:7 applied 121:8 April/May 139:12 32:1 35:13 41:4 119:22 120:6 Anglophone 37:14 applies 88:5 139:13 46:4,19 48:9,11 121:1,3,17 122:17 announced 88:12 appoint 88:23 archbishop 13:9 50:2,14 51:4 56:8 122:23 123:3,7 88:20 92:25 appointed 26:15 23:8 26:9 30:17 74:23 85:17 86:19 128:7 129:17 177:13 32:20 45:15 48:6 31:1,1,11 32:5,5,6 90:12 92:22 95:2 130:1,24 131:4 annual 37:16 48:24 88:17 143:7 157:5 36:1 37:13,21 95:4,7 98:5 144:22,24 149:11 69:17,21 92:24 appointing 26:21 42:14,19 46:25 118:13 128:10 alleged 62:23 106:5 130:21 82:19 155:17 47:1 51:15 52:21 131:25 145:10 116:23 121:9 133:18 153:4 appointment 14:12 52:22 60:10 154:1,4 169:25 125:13 130:3 annually 7:16 22:12 24:2 32:17 archdiocese 25:15 175:22 alleging 37:24 69:21 82:22 83:7,16 67:12 102:11 asking 3:13 9:11 allocate 161:24 answer 16:8 41:7 appreciate 155:6 106:24 107:3 11:6 124:5 133:12 allocated 135:24 90:14 167:20 111:8 133:13 allow 51:22 101:19 answers 71:16 approach 4:4,5 archdioceses 40:24 aspect 8:10 92:19 102:25 anti-Catholic 7:13 8:6,12 16:5 area 11:1 98:14,14 142:25 allowed 19:16 156:21 17:12 18:4 23:21 98:15 150:17 aspects 92:9 136:16 allowing 78:12 anticipated 59:19 39:8 57:23 61:11 151:2 153:15 159:13 alongside 70:19 75:8 70:23 71:13 79:7 areas 24:16 112:24 168:11 166:5,6 antidote 132:17 94:4 99:10 101:5 143:20 161:24 assert 139:15 altered 163:12 anybody 36:17 101:9,13 104:10 166:20 168:21,25 assertive 97:25 alternative 79:15 41:1 94:11 106:14,14,19,21 174:13 99:1,3 80:13 anymore 150:21 107:5,9 137:3 arena 144:20 158:3 assertively 139:16 amber 10:8 apologetically 142:8,9 145:3,7 arisen 45:4 109:23 assets 20:9 ameliorate 44:6 39:19 approached 147:11 arises 96:17,18 assist 103:24 amenable 12:19 apologies 124:7 appropriate 8:4 arising 12:24 assistance 119:10 amended 144:7 172:13 175:25 60:24 94:17 109:20 119:13,15 165:10 amendment 138:16 apologise 33:21 152:18 158:7,10 arm 88:4,4 146:8 assists 54:22 58:24 amendments 53:2 175:17 163:17 166:12 arose 30:14 109:11 64:1 65:19 68:1 115:22 apologised 28:5 168:20 173:18 112:12 74:14 79:1 84:13 America 139:6 39:22 52:23 53:1 178:13,15 179:21 arrangement 93:17 96:20 109:3 amount 136:7,12 apologises 27:23 appropriately 134:21 139:6 associated 113:11 140:23 28:2 29:23 136:9 arrangements 85:8 assume 11:15 26:11

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 185

39:24 173:10 30:11 33:11,14 backgrounds 3:9 Benedict 36:9 9:24 11:12 13:2,5 assurance 136:20 92:4 99:22,24 103:21 39:12 13:14 20:12,17 144:6 108:4 112:4 118:4 bad 42:19 benefit 21:21,23 22:15 24:8,15 assure 109:23 118:8 120:21 balance 76:6 benefits 70:16 30:6 41:18 47:7 atrocious 77:22 124:24 156:18,19 Bernie 80:7 49:20 50:9,10 attempt 71:1 authority's 122:1 Baroness 14:11 Bertelson 3:19 59:9 61:9 66:15 attempted 38:16 130:16 61:16,19 75:16 14:16 66:17,19,23 67:4 attempts 38:14 automatic 107:24 89:1 166:17 best 23:3 75:2 67:6 81:7 87:8 110:4 107:25 108:9 177:17 88:22 96:13 100:18 attend 9:1,22 13:3 autonomy 15:15,18 barriers 135:10 better 26:2,4 48:18 101:14 107:7 13:15 94:23 95:3 15:25 18:15 26:8 based 41:25 66:20 49:10 106:20 137:12,16,17 159:19,21,22,23 available 49:7 58:3 basically 127:1 113:1 135:18 142:22 165:1 160:8 169:24,25 117:6,7 125:17 basics 162:14 145:6 162:24 166:12 168:6,6,8 attendance 1:24 129:25 basis 48:1,2 64:12 165:15 174:9 176:14 159:19,20 160:1 avenues 11:5 84:3 117:6 123:17 175:24 176:4 Bishops' 2:5,11 attended 2:14,22 average 35:18 127:7 146:4 149:5 beyond 18:14 71:2 9:18 12:5,7 14:23 13:6 20:24,25 await 97:2 becoming 45:16 152:1 22:9 24:1 27:8,14 34:16 57:11 aware 1:23 3:18,20 beg 49:25 Bible 78:22 28:17,24 29:13,23 110:14 140:12 9:25 14:17 16:3 began 6:11 big 81:24 165:20 43:5,17 60:5,14 171:5 21:13 30:21 31:11 begged 35:14 168:18 174:20 60:16,22 82:23 attending 160:11 36:14 37:6,7 beginning 41:24 bigger 24:25 83:3,13,14,20 attention 55:6 38:18 44:17 71:3 42:22 48:7 74:16 Birmingham 23:8 84:20 86:8,10,12 114:4 122:5 114:14,14 132:6 79:5,21 137:4 25:15 41:25 42:14 87:7 88:9,14 137:15,23 132:21,23 133:3 158:25 164:24 42:19,19 43:13 91:18 92:16 93:12 attitude 9:17 35:5 135:1 136:10 behalf 21:21 47:1 45:8 67:12 106:24 93:20 94:24 96:16 audience 166:10 159:15 171:14 61:16 bishop 5:22 8:19,21 120:15 audit 18:1 111:7,15 awareness 16:4 behave 19:16 20:14 8:22 9:10,12,20 bit 19:19 79:24 111:17,19 112:2 36:17 behaved 121:11,15 11:25 12:1,2,10 81:11 146:24 135:4,19 145:22 away-day 99:18 behaviour 34:13 14:4,10,15 19:18 164:24 165:10 146:9 159:16 160:1 121:3 127:15 19:22 22:7 23:7 172:23 178:24 auditing 10:17,20 Belfast 150:24 24:21 26:9,15,21 blank 33:25 61:7 17:9 23:19 145:13 B belief 47:7 178:6 27:4,9 28:18 62:16 162:25 audits 10:25 11:3,9 back 5:25 18:23 believe 15:13 19:16 32:13,16 33:2,5 block 18:12,17,18 11:10 111:4,8 32:7 39:17 41:19 35:23 41:5 54:21 33:24 37:18,21 blocked 18:21,21 112:4 136:19 67:2 72:6 103:11 55:12,16,23 59:5 47:24 60:10 73:23 18:24 145:16 146:4 115:4,8 127:25 64:3 74:5 76:15 83:2 90:4,16,17 blocking 19:4 Australia 69:8 97:9 138:15 160:5 77:4 90:18 101:23 91:5 93:8,17 blow 55:4 authorities 103:18 162:14,22,25 113:14 150:3 94:14 98:9,9,16 board 7:25 8:4 10:2 117:14,20 119:7 163:10,20,25 believed 35:15 100:8 101:4,10 41:22 42:16 45:3 120:25 123:9 164:9,14 170:20 172:8 114:6 123:12 48:7,18 98:13 124:2 125:18 170:22 176:5,8,10 believes 62:21 124:10,18 127:14 141:15 130:23 158:15 179:22 158:16 137:23 139:22 bodies 22:24 72:11 authorities' 145:20 background 1:18 believing 174:23 147:8 147:20 authority 5:18,19 26:23 54:1 84:5,6 beneath 45:1 89:18 bishops 5:5,7,10,11 body 5:10 11:20 6:7,15 11:8 19:17 150:9 151:19 89:24 129:19 5:24 8:18 9:1,10 43:17 47:9 51:22

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 186

54:22 64:20,22 26:5 65:8,12 capable 15:19 120:1,15,17,24 47:12,14,17 49:11 73:4 100:14 144:1 67:10 75:8 85:16 174:24 123:12 126:17 51:3 53:6,8,11,12 bold 123:1 86:13,17,19 capture 155:6 133:25 134:15 53:16 55:10 56:23 bono 103:20 141:2 budgets 25:11 captured 148:19 135:2 137:12 58:25 66:15 72:12 bonus 45:12 67:11 135:23 cardinal 30:18 139:20 142:3,11 72:15 74:10,13,23 bottom 2:20 4:9 building 43:7,15,25 41:15,16 51:17 142:21 144:21 78:25 82:3,5,9,15 5:13 8:9 34:10 45:16 52:14,15,25 53:3 145:12 146:17,21 82:19 83:21 84:2 62:7,18 85:5 built 42:11 169:7,21,24 147:2 152:22 84:4 93:18 94:9 91:12,14 101:17 bullet 3:4 4:9,16,17 171:23 176:5,18 156:1,9,13,13,16 94:17,19,23 95:5 103:14 115:14 5:13 21:2 91:14 cardinal's 176:12 164:20 168:5 95:20 96:20 99:11 119:19 127:12,25 96:24 100:2,4 care 36:13 103:17 170:17 99:16 102:3 105:4 158:12 169:22 101:3,16 104:13 career 1:18 50:24 Catholicism 156:6 106:6 108:23 177:25 105:5,9 121:10 54:1 Catholics 156:4 109:4 115:10 box 3:3,23 4:9 172:2 173:7 Carey 149:18,20 caught 61:25 75:25 117:12 129:14 62:16 89:11 90:2 Bullivant 49:1 70:1 150:1,2 180:22 76:1 130:19 131:13,15 149:22 162:10 bundle 1:8 3:10 181:5,8 182:5 cause 51:1 147:25 131:21,22 135:3 171:22 177:25 59:1 96:21 137:8 carried 6:21 111:9 caused 28:14 34:15 136:13 140:18 boxes 162:9 bundles 53:17 carries 12:1 99:12 38:7 142:22 141:23 143:7,9 brackets 59:16 bus 14:19 carry 10:24 64:7 causes 132:6 149:14,15,20 breach 103:12,13 business 79:12,17 136:14 144:15 causing 77:7 150:5,6 151:6,18 114:7 139:24 79:22 80:19 85:25 carrying 145:17 caution 70:14 154:17 156:8 breached 46:9 85:25 106:3,6 146:3 caveat 116:7 127:6 161:19 171:12 break 53:11,14 144:6,7,10 case 19:21 34:2,16 CCIA 38:18 175:8 180:24 94:2,18 130:18 buy-in 87:13,14 49:14 51:25 68:8 CDF 109:4,19 181:1,5,7 131:13,15,19 85:1 86:1 94:7 celebrate 76:1 chair's 104:22 breakdown 154:18 C 105:13,14 106:17 155:13 130:19 brief 69:7 114:8 cake 81:11 109:7 112:11 celebration 78:17 chaired 20:24 131:13 calf 78:18 114:2,5,7,13,15 78:24 61:15,17,19 90:3 briefing 3:18 15:22 call 18:22 21:12 117:21 121:19 celebratory 75:19 91:13 96:23 151:18 157:18 27:14 138:3 140:9 cent 130:24 131:1,3 150:12 154:7 160:9 152:13,23 155:18 cases 30:21 116:19 central 86:3 94:12 chairman 50:16 bring 2:16 33:6 158:22 177:23 125:11 131:1 centre 76:5 chairs 57:9 67:5 39:8 45:25 50:11 called 11:17 151:22 132:17 173:13 CEO 54:4 96:8 104:15,16 71:19 115:5 152:14 167:7 CaTEW 43:3,3 certain 174:23 143:15 137:15,22 calls 40:9 45:19 89:19 certainly 6:13 7:16 challenge 5:21 16:6 brings 93:23 campaigned 23:12 Catholic 1:14 2:3 8:7 12:18 43:12 39:6,11 87:21 broad 108:14,15 Canadian 37:13 6:1 11:18 27:22 49:10 51:17 66:3 91:5 92:2 144:19 155:8 candidates 83:11 28:2 35:1,8,21 94:6 95:5 101:1 147:23,24 broadly 51:9 Canon 41:5,11 61:3 41:22 42:4 49:16 138:10 156:19 challenged 47:25 broke 40:7 81:16 100:6,13,20 49:21 50:3,17 174:12 175:16,20 57:5 101:12 broken 174:1 100:23,25 139:24 51:9 53:4 56:6 chair 1:3,5,14,22 challenges 8:3,12 brought 48:14,16 canonical 60:25 68:10 75:10 76:7 3:20 14:5,9,11,19 11:24 87:17,25 49:15 55:6 92:18 120:16 127:16 80:22 82:23 88:1 14:21 15:23 19:20 138:12 114:4 122:5 164:8 132:2,5,8,10,24 88:8 89:18 90:23 24:4 31:4 40:17 challenging 5:18 budget 25:19,22,25 132:25 133:5,14 92:9 116:5,13 41:15 42:15 45:21 142:10

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 187 chance 80:8 CHC001936_002 Chris 44:13,19 131:11 133:25 122:6,9 129:22 change 19:13 44:2 105:4 45:3 79:24 80:5 134:2,5,15 135:2 134:11 140:25 44:3,4 54:15 CHC001937 147:16 160:19,23 135:24 139:20 141:20 143:16 71:14 75:4 106:25 151:13 163:22 141:12 142:3,11 144:13 113:8 139:11 CHC001947 96:20 Christian 94:14 142:19,21,25 clearly 76:11 77:12 153:16 174:6,11 CHC002020_017... 155:13 156:9 144:21 145:12,15 92:11 138:17 179:17 41:21 Christopher 55:10 146:10,17,21 149:2 152:5 changed 38:4 87:19 CHC002020_022 82:10,11,14 147:2,14 152:22 170:20 88:2 105:22 139:5 44:22 181:24 153:23 154:23,24 clergy 8:23 9:3,11 142:18 143:2 checks 32:25 chronology 44:25 154:24 155:11,16 9:14,21 19:15 162:3 163:12 chief 56:3 48:9 156:13 157:1,2 52:24 59:11,14 changes 55:5 72:8 child 6:24 8:2 10:4 church 3:24 4:1,5 158:10,17 161:8 60:6 100:6,7 112:1 114:19 13:4 16:19 19:9 5:17 6:1 8:6,12 164:7,9,15 167:7 119:23 120:17 138:15,19 162:21 21:17 32:24 33:3 9:7 15:6 16:5,10 167:7,24 168:5 121:9 125:9 163:14,23 169:6 44:9,10 45:6,20 16:11,12 17:12,20 173:15 174:15 closely 4:13 180:17 46:20 47:2,20,25 19:24 20:4,16 175:10,24 180:12 CMO000006_001 changing 111:21 78:20 109:5 22:21,22 25:11,20 180:15 38:9 138:22 161:13 116:15,19,21,23 26:5 27:22 28:2,4 Church' 4:3,11 CMO000009_001 162:20 117:16 118:1,9,12 29:12,20 30:2 101:5 34:23 chapter 129:15 118:23 119:10,14 33:10,11 34:5 church's 1:23 co-operate 9:2 charge 16:20 121:12,14,15,23 35:1,8,21,23 39:7 23:20 25:4 48:22 coach 19:25 charity 21:18,19 125:2,11 126:1,15 39:8,10 41:6 50:9 76:18 85:7 127:1 Code 63:15 40:7 54:5 126:17 128:1 50:17 51:9 52:2,8 128:12 130:14 codes 59:10,12 Charles 60:10 134:10 142:20 52:9,16 53:4 churches 150:23 coffee 176:19 chart 7:1 93:6 150:11,13,18 55:22 56:6 59:12 164:11 coherent 55:1 chase 110:2 child's 45:25 59:15 61:11 62:12 circulated 60:3 Colette 89:3 99:4 CHC001715_001... 118:16 119:2 65:5,21 67:12 80:10,12 102:3 109:13 69:3 childhood 40:1,9 68:10 70:10 71:9 cite 8:21 33:7,9 112:24 148:20 CHC001726 106:6 40:13 75:10,24 76:7,10 58:8 65:22 collaborative 29:5 CHC001738 99:16 children 6:3 33:13 76:21 77:1,5,8,19 cited 20:5 40:20 collective 98:2 CHC001741_003 37:1 40:4 62:13 77:25 78:16,23 140:10 collectively 36:15 2:16 80:22 98:13 80:22 81:4,10,15 civil 47:25 100:9 111:13 142:10 CHC001772_001 115:11 118:17 81:17,23 87:13,16 175:14 colloquially 158:23 91:11 120:6,9,10,10 87:25 88:1,8 claim 47:25 column 61:6 63:1 CHC001926 58:24 121:16,25 122:2 90:23 92:9 93:25 claims 175:14 Comboni 33:8 34:3 CHC001928 71:21 123:8 127:4 94:5 99:11 101:8 clarification 87:2 35:9 36:16 37:7 CHC001934_003 129:18 133:23 101:13 102:20 171:22 37:13 38:10 51:13 152:14 154:23 105:10 106:11,14 clarify 140:7 52:4 CHC001935 children's 84:7 106:14,18,19,21 clarity 43:1 75:7 Combonis 39:25 161:21 166:25 118:4,8 107:5,13 108:6 clear 2:17 4:6 5:2 come 4:7 6:8 17:2 177:24 children/adults 111:7 116:5,13 8:25 15:22 30:20 23:17 30:4 32:9 CHC001935_004 130:4 158:13 117:18,25 120:1 33:15 36:3 39:6 33:7 36:19 37:19 169:22 choose 11:1 120:24 121:2,4 72:14,16 102:5 40:6 41:1 67:2 CHC001936 chops 81:11 123:12 126:17 108:19 113:17 81:19 89:17 95:4 171:12 chose 48:5 129:1 130:24 116:10 118:22 98:7 102:21

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 188

105:19 115:4 104:15,22 113:24 91:12 153:3 118:11 119:2 87:7 88:9,15 142:14 154:14 115:5 117:12 community 126:16 compulsory 159:19 91:18 92:16 93:13 156:15 162:2 135:3 138:16 company 92:8 159:20 93:20 94:24 95:12 163:20,25 166:5,6 139:1 140:5 112:12 113:5 concentrate 140:20 96:17 100:18,19 166:13 168:2,12 152:18 153:2 163:9,9 169:12 101:14 120:15 169:5,9 170:22 164:20 165:4,8 compare 37:12 concept 87:15 170:22 171:15 176:8 commission's 13:5 comparing 73:2 107:12 132:9,23 176:5 comes 36:20 107:24 106:3 139:15 Comparisons concern 10:14 conferences 12:5 116:9 151:10,15 153:3 70:13 32:19 123:22 29:18 57:10 71:23 175:13 commissioned compassion 173:25 127:8 128:12,16 71:25 72:3,7,11 comfort 177:7 10:16 46:25 49:1 compelled 36:6 147:25 148:10 72:15,17,20,22,25 comfortable 18:19 113:3 compensation 175:13 73:11,17 85:9,20 coming 16:15 32:7 commissioning 172:22,24 173:13 concerned 60:17 89:12 96:5 113:9 35:16 37:5 47:12 54:13 173:18 64:22 113:14 114:24 136:7 165:9 168:4 commissions 65:16 competence 4:23 concerns 30:22 140:4 176:22 178:9 89:24 90:2,24 77:1 38:23 62:12 97:19 confidence 90:16 179:24 104:3 107:7 competent 5:3 98:8 114:12 90:17 commenced 59:25 114:12 116:1 62:22 115:13 116:12 confidential 45:2 comment 4:15 134:22,23,24 competently 14:17 118:1,3,9,23 128:17 157:25 19:23 20:2 24:24 135:9,15,20,21 complacency 76:20 119:22 121:3,17 158:4,6 167:15 38:24 97:14 100:4 commit 66:24 76:23 77:1 124:8 125:22 confidentiality 115:4 142:1 75:20 complaint 62:20 129:17,19 130:25 128:9 157:24 178:22 commitment 8:10 114:2 131:5 148:2 158:8 commented 24:15 47:5 165:20 complaints 44:16 162:18 163:5 confidentiality/c... comments 17:10 commitments 163:5 178:18 concludes 34:11 157:21 164:16 170:16,19 150:21 complete 179:17 conclusion 23:16 confronted 173:24 171:22,25 172:2,5 committed 18:1 completed 162:2 162:23 170:4 confronting 15:7 commission 1:15 24:21 37:8 52:24 completely 30:3 conditions 22:16 confused 59:13 2:5,24 3:2 6:22 66:6 121:13 78:21 163:12,20 45:5 confusing 108:22 8:14 13:24 14:9 committee 51:16 completeness conditions' 59:14 congregation 41:9 14:21,21 16:22,22 86:10 94:7 119:16 conduct 59:10 41:13,16 51:18 17:24 25:23,24,25 common 55:2,20 complex 124:4 121:23 122:17,24 101:10 107:8 30:10,22 43:23 57:15 64:24 69:1 141:1 146:24 123:3 124:8 109:1,22 113:20 47:5,18,21,22 77:14 Complexity 105:1 conference 2:6,6,11 120:14 124:10 48:5 55:12 61:18 commonly 167:8 compliance 30:12 2:11 5:10 9:10,19 127:14 139:22 64:14 65:17 66:16 communicate 56:18 84:19 85:7 12:5,6,7 13:15,16 147:6 67:3 69:24 70:18 164:22 104:21 111:3 13:25 14:23,23 congregations 70:23 73:1,17,25 communicated 137:11 158:21 16:25 22:9 24:1 16:19 90:5 137:18 74:3,20 75:6 43:13,14 51:14 compliant 147:19 28:17,24 29:13,13 168:11 76:15 79:8 84:17 113:24 complicated 81:4 29:24,24 37:14,15 conjunction 120:5 88:15 90:11,13,15 communication complied 137:19 37:16 43:6,18 connect 102:8 90:19 91:3 93:4 14:2 72:20 109:18 complying 32:2 59:9,9 60:5,14,17 connected 90:23 94:4,7,12,13 96:8 160:16 171:18 102:20 60:22,23 82:23,24 connecting 124:3 97:9,25 98:3,25 172:1 175:1 176:4 comprising 83:1 83:3,13,14,14,20 connection 120:23 99:9 102:11 104:5 communications compromise 84:20 86:8,12 134:23

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 189 conscious 26:17 contacting 130:7 conversations 150:8,16 151:3,20 criteria 123:11 consciousness containing 142:19 160:19 163:22 151:25 124:8 79:25 contemporaneous 179:14 correctly 173:17 critical 26:13 28:18 consent 118:7,10 103:11 convey 174:5 correspond 96:5 54:20 161:4,7,14 118:23 content 91:4 92:12 conveyed 159:2,8 correspondence criticised 52:25 consenting 131:6 context 58:22 63:22 coordinator 1:25 34:21 38:7 40:14 criticisms 143:24 consider 38:20 51:8 75:12,14 87:10 4:24 17:17 21:8 143:21 148:14 167:22 69:8 70:20 72:3 88:24 90:20 91:21 26:15,17 32:4,18 cost 103:19 cross-section 155:2 88:6 89:5 97:12 91:25 92:10,14 32:23 33:1 90:9 costings 85:11 155:10 119:9 127:15 93:5 98:3,5 99:14 90:12 116:25 country 168:24 crucial 61:8 79:21 146:7,15 102:14 103:7 117:11,12 118:6 couple 96:19 107:6 172:22 considerable 98:7 104:7 107:9,11 119:9 122:4,11 127:12 178:7 147:25 169:6 108:2,5 122:15 123:25 124:1,13 courage 35:16 37:5 CSA005835_007 consideration 123:11,16 128:14 124:17,20,21,23 40:5,6 20:22 118:5 124:11 128:17 134:6,13 125:15,24 126:23 course 9:24 31:7 CSAS 3:24 4:19,25 138:21 167:4 136:5 127:11 129:24,25 45:23 62:5 66:2 6:24 7:17 8:2,15 considerations contexts 120:22 130:5,7,9 131:10 70:3,5 86:22 87:2 10:1,17 11:6 12:4 132:16 172:10 155:6 coordinators 3:7,8 96:6,16 128:24 12:11 13:4 20:25 considered 62:4 continually 138:18 21:1,4,10,11 141:12,17 158:20 22:13,16,18,20 88:24 116:15,19 continue 17:25 89:25 96:9 116:2 172:25 23:18 25:19 28:23 125:2,11 126:2 47:13 78:13 116:17 166:11 courtesy 14:24 29:3,8,10,16 128:1 138:21 121:24 COPCA 42:16 85:1 38:24 41:19,25 42:9,9 142:19 145:1 continued 3:20 87:6 Covenants 103:17 42:24 43:2,4,6,9 considering 89:7 continues 52:8 copies 164:11 cover 68:9 43:17 44:11,14 consistency 69:8 continuing 45:10 copy 58:25 98:18 coverup 175:7 45:4,16 46:13,15 consistently 14:18 63:12 154:12 160:8 coverups 77:23 48:23 64:14,16 16:24 34:6 contract 112:14,22 CoR 2:7 5:7 14:2 CP 91:16 65:1,2,7,8,10,15 conspiracy 76:20 112:23 18:6 60:13 84:20 CPAS 150:20 67:10 69:16,18,20 76:23,25 contribute 96:12 93:9,13,14,18,20 CRC 59:25 60:1 70:6,8 73:5,7 85:2 constant 66:13 144:9 93:21 create 101:11 85:6 86:4 89:3,20 constantly 68:8 contributes 103:21 core 7:24 8:13 created 85:2 86:5 89:20,21,24 96:5 108:10 contributing 13:21 51:24 52:4 106:3 93:6 96:11 99:5 100:17 consult 116:24 contribution 17:4 145:10 creating 78:16 102:4,22 104:2 125:14 153:1 corners 71:12 101:9 110:18 111:3,6 consultancy 27:13 contributions corporate 55:4,9 creation 151:4,19 112:18 113:15 consultant 150:15 13:12 74:24 164:1 155:21 114:8 115:3,4 consultation 44:9 153:22 correct 1:21 2:2 9:5 credible 66:24 145:14 160:13 60:4,4,23 93:24 control 154:2 13:7 41:24 45:17 87:12 164:22 178:20 117:11 119:8 165:16 53:25 54:17 59:7 credit 15:6 48:14 180:2 141:6 convenience 42:17 61:5 83:19 85:3 crime 54:12 132:10 culture 4:11 107:10 consulted 46:3 convenience' 43:4 85:12 89:16,22 132:25 107:18 108:2 contact 38:14,16,24 convenient 181:6 93:11,22 95:1 criminal 36:17,25 134:6 146:11 80:9 96:16 108:25 conversant 105:15 96:15 98:23 111:1 40:1 54:3 121:13 Cumberlege 6:19 109:4 129:23,24 conversation 26:21 113:19 133:11 criminally 25:1 6:23 7:14 8:11,15 129:25 110:10 137:25 138:24 Crispian 8:22 9:12 14:8 15:12 42:13

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 190

57:20 58:1,18 44:13,17 81:22 decides 131:8 depth 68:15 67:5 86:23 59:2,17 61:8 95:22 96:1 97:7 deciding 65:24 Derbyshire-based Diarmuid 52:22 63:24 64:13,22 141:24 145:25 decision 46:3,4,5 54:5 differ 79:10 65:2,6,14 72:1 159:11,11 46:16 57:2,6,13 describe 65:19 73:8 difference 9:17 73:3 84:25 87:6 day-to-day 64:12 57:18 66:23 114:18 134:17 35:5 108:20 87:19 88:3 103:16 days 9:3 46:2 95:20 124:16 140:9,13 171:9 172:23 136:10 139:19 138:2,4,16 142:13 143:15 140:15,16 141:5 described 46:14 153:16 179:22,25 142:18 143:1,12 De 39:17 141:14 155:17 72:24 96:4 differences 160:22 143:14,17 deal 6:18 30:13,20 decisions 55:2 description 84:12 different 9:6 11:22 currency 76:22 31:10,17 40:14,19 56:23 57:16,17 96:1 141:24 11:23 71:7 105:3 current 34:11 45:4 40:21,23 41:20 75:3 139:25 140:2 deserves 15:6 113:5 132:1 136:5 55:10 59:3,5,23 42:21 44:8,21 140:4,8 141:17,18 design 155:16 141:11 154:10 61:6 62:15 63:1 49:17 62:22 63:22 142:4 163:9,9,25 155:5,12,13 156:9 69:11 74:10 79:10 67:18,23 97:18 Declan 14:15 designated 122:1 159:13 161:25 104:7 112:7 148:12,20 149:12 decree 61:2 138:3 despite 30:1 45:18 163:21 168:10,19 115:11 121:17,21 158:7 139:8,8 147:4,8 destroying 77:22 168:25 130:4 143:10 dealing 4:16 23:21 decreta 60:24 detail 4:7 45:22 differently 67:21 146:4 23:22 27:5 28:22 dedicated 64:6 89:17 136:20 difficult 18:3 21:7 currently 88:18 54:1,21 71:2 deeply 34:17 141:8 180:20 24:17 28:20 35:17 114:14 177:14 76:18 84:5 87:5 deference 94:3,6,11 detailed 160:6 40:19 68:14 70:2 cut 44:21 66:25 93:25 96:24 108:6 94:16 detected 5:15 73:9 76:20,24 cycle 96:14 115:9 123:16 deferential 73:14 determine 22:15 81:25 107:16 125:1,25 149:6,6 73:17 94:4 55:7 117:13 136:2 111:15 138:23 D deals 55:13 107:21 deferring 73:16 136:7 144:13 166:1 D 181:14 dealt 4:24 12:20 74:6 determined 2:22 168:17 daily 71:1 123:16 24:10 81:20 definition 63:7 18:6 81:16 difficulties 140:20 danger 116:15,20 132:19 148:6,21 78:20 132:2 determining 22:17 140:22 145:16 117:1,2 129:21 149:18 173:17 definitions 108:19 develop 59:10 65:5 difficulty 16:13,17 130:14 Dear 80:6 delay 168:14 92:25 113:1 146:12 160:15 Danny 1:6,10,13 deaths 150:19 delegate 124:11 developed 69:16 digitally 119:21 45:21 50:16 debate 74:25 79:7 deliberate 155:17 79:12 106:2 diocesan 15:25 110:13,14 181:16 88:6 91:2 100:24 deliver 65:4 151:1 178:23 17:3,16 32:17 dashed 89:19 debating 87:9 demand 75:8 developing 6:19 90:20 134:21 data 69:11,12,16,18 decade 49:4 demands 24:23 54:15 diocese 9:21 11:25 69:21 70:6,8,12 deceased 37:24 67:20 136:8 development 85:7 12:2 15:18,19 145:3,5 48:1 demonstrate 175:2 85:14 87:9 96:12 17:14,16 20:9 database 69:25 December 45:11 176:25 97:7 102:1 141:11 21:19,20,22 26:11 date 43:22 45:13 61:14 75:15 88:17 Denise 48:10,13 167:4 26:17,18,25 48:1 112:6 167:3 88:25 denomination Devenish 34:12,25 48:2 49:7 90:4,11 dated 50:13 84:14 decent 78:9 155:14 156:10 38:8,10 40:15 99:25 101:1 114:11 decide 117:25 department 27:13 devised 161:22 113:20 120:14 David 149:21,23 124:23,24 130:14 59:25 118:4,8 devoid 173:24 136:13 148:4,17 150:3 182:3 decided 37:24 58:2 depend 4:22 devote 24:20 165:24,25 166:2,3 day 1:3 2:18 18:4,8 145:4 161:24 depended 32:3 devoting 25:12 166:13 168:9 19:2 22:6,20 163:24 170:14 dependent 122:13 dialogue 28:8 67:3 dioceses 3:21 10:25

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 191

11:2,12 15:19 disclosed 109:15 51:18 109:1,16 105:10 175:10 62:22 63:5 67:19 23:10 26:19 37:15 disclosure 109:14 138:14 driven 105:16 79:16 109:14 40:24 49:13 173:14 document 2:15,17 drops 179:21 121:19 148:4 109:15 136:2,11 disclosures 153:23 2:20 3:12 6:16 Drugs 54:12 electronic 102:5 136:17 137:18 disconnect 8:16 7:6,9 20:21 41:20 Dublin 52:22 108:18 112:13,17 147:18,20 148:5 135:21 44:22 50:11,14 due 31:7 44:12 element 134:14 165:9,23 166:7 discretion 117:18 51:18 59:4 60:14 131:3 149:7 176:6 elements 108:8 169:13 124:14,20 130:11 60:19 62:10,17 Eleven 38:3 direct 98:15 126:21 discuss 8:4 10:3 69:2 79:1 80:7,12 E Elizabeth 99:6 166:21 170:18 12:12 20:12 45:6 80:17,18 99:19 E 181:14 else's 146:12 directed 119:2 60:11 65:7 98:21 105:3,6,7 115:19 earlier 23:6 32:1 email 27:19 46:6 direction 29:7 116:23 115:22 116:3 55:19 72:22 80:20 79:24 80:2 160:18 46:12,13 71:9 discussed 45:22 120:13,18 123:14 103:23 104:20 emails 148:16 84:18 85:6 89:12 61:14,23 73:6 128:19 130:6,20 105:2 115:23 embarrassing 90:6 79:22 141:8,10 148:24 151:12,14 134:7 142:1 37:17 directly 18:23 38:7 146:19 154:9 152:1 155:20 143:21 174:21 embedded 4:11 38:9 51:4 97:13 158:4 160:10 162:1 175:9 108:9 134:7,15 102:21 113:23 discusses 125:13 167:1 170:5 early 109:21 142:24 116:16 124:2 discussing 97:19 171:12,13 173:8 143:15 embedding 108:11 125:3 127:11 177:5 174:25 177:22 easier 7:6 108:17 146:11 director 1:20 4:25 discussion 2:21 documentation 1:7 108:18 166:4 emerges 127:9 6:24 7:17 8:2,14 6:14 7:18 9:18 60:6 63:14 easily 12:22 85:23 emotional 148:10 10:1,4,16 12:11 42:3,22,23 58:1 documents 96:19 123:14 emphasising 13:4 20:24 23:6,7 59:25 69:14 75:5 151:10 Easter 24:2 172:20 26:10 28:23 29:3 79:7 86:9 91:21 doing 27:12 48:16 easy 102:6 employee 45:19 42:9 44:11 45:4 91:23 97:6 99:8 77:10,13,13 78:3 ebb 47:18 employees 22:14 45:14 46:15 54:11 99:21 117:10 78:9 80:1 95:24 EBC 98:21 employer 43:4 89:21 96:11 99:5 154:7 170:12 104:9,19 134:12 ecclesiastical employment 45:25 102:4 167:16 discussions 31:8 135:12 138:12 128:20,25 enable 94:9 Directory 120:16 79:11 138:10 172:12 Eccleston 42:4,10 enabling 123:23 disabled 32:24 139:2 144:9 152:1 domain 11:13 editor 50:2 encapsulates 172:7 disadvantages 152:4 172:3 114:8 education 1:19,20 encompass 142:3 146:9 176:12 domicile 114:1 10:16 23:6,8 encountered disagree 5:8 143:13 dismayed 34:14 double 56:11,14 27:13 50:24 110:24 143:14 144:3,4 display 164:11 68:7 effect 45:8 54:15 encourage 65:4 disagreed 3:14 disruptive 45:16 doubt 49:14 118:3 effective 7:23 67:16 166:7 23:10,12 70:23 disseminated Downside 61:21 135:13 164:3 encouraged 177:8 disagreement 164:14,16 169:13 Dr 136:21 effectively 9:20 ended 74:11 57:13 86:24 90:10 distance 42:9 draft 60:3,9 88:18 43:5 46:9 57:14 enforce 30:11 90:13 distilled 170:5 148:24 89:21 119:17 enforces 56:18 disappointed 24:6 distinction 117:1 drafted 110:21 139:7 140:24 enforcing 4:20 50:25 52:19 divided 154:10 142:6 160:3 engage 20:20 disappointment divorce 64:17 drafting 88:18,21 efficient 10:7 170:24 22:5 146:3 Drainey 98:9 eight 80:3 154:19 engaged 89:5 159:7 disbanded 84:25 Doctrine 41:9 drive 19:25 39:7 either 17:2 51:8 engages 35:2

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 192

169:16 estimates 56:9 expect 56:4 116:8 extremely 81:7,8 37:6,7 43:14,20 engaging 47:11,15 event 118:17 expected 66:2 110:5 44:17 60:16 64:21 England 13:14 events 62:5 66:2 134:1 145:3 171:14 21:1 41:22 49:19 77:21 121:17,20 experience 23:24 F Father 12:19 23:2 50:17 56:6 60:22 evidence 35:18 32:22 34:14 35:3 fabric 134:1,5 34:12,25 38:8,10 61:1 70:12 80:18 56:17 57:23 63:13 35:12 37:10 54:14 face 33:25,25 40:15 44:13,19 80:21 81:10,13,18 73:18,22 77:4,24 54:21 57:15 63:10 179:20,20 45:3 46:18 60:9 82:23 88:1 116:13 90:8 131:4,9 74:17 75:21 84:7 face-to-face 165:15 Fathers 35:4 120:1,15,24 144:23,24 147:10 86:24 90:18 93:3 165:17 166:9 fatted 78:18 133:25 137:13 159:1 161:1 93:24 105:22 facilitated 89:1 fault 147:17 141:12 142:12,22 evidence-based 110:15 149:3 facilitating 119:12 fear 5:13,14,18,20 English-speaking 69:9 152:25 153:14 fact 18:19,25 26:14 5:22 6:5,8 68:17 37:15 evident 142:21 155:24 156:2,10 41:14 44:15 45:18 February 21:4 enshrined 50:20 evil 77:25 173:6 46:3 66:12 68:2 44:12 59:6 60:11 ensure 45:13 84:20 evolve 168:17 experienced 173:20 69:22 81:5 87:22 150:7 86:6 93:2 137:10 evolved 154:12 experiences 76:12 92:15 94:11 99:11 fed 160:5 137:19 152:17 exact 95:10 153:18 159:1 101:7 103:6 feed 31:3,5,9 160:4 179:5 Examination 1:11 expert 130:12 132:17 142:17 feedback 66:18 ensured 61:11 53:20 82:12 150:1 expertise 48:21 144:5 155:15 72:21 130:5 ensures 93:24 181:18,22 182:1,5 93:4,24 158:3 171:8,11 feel 4:4 7:14 19:4 ensuring 16:5 examined 112:6 experts 85:4 154:21 172:21 180:10 21:9 26:2,4 36:6 108:9 142:24 example 8:21 11:6 explain 110:17 faculties 8:25 9:15 63:7 73:13,23 145:8 25:16 26:18 30:16 169:15 failed 158:17 87:14 91:9 92:15 entail 63:10 33:7 52:13 56:24 explaining 166:9 failing 52:1 168:16 92:21 94:3 99:10 entitled 115:11 60:15 66:9 67:13 explore 10:19 22:9 Failure 5:7 134:3 135:17 environment 73:23 85:13,20 26:24 failures 142:21 153:18 167:25 156:15 94:16 106:23 exploring 10:24 fair 4:15 17:19 174:11 envisaged 73:3 126:15 140:10,21 exposing 68:21 114:3 129:14 feeling 6:11 14:17 envy 103:17 145:19 153:4 express 73:25 137:1 24:12 25:7,8 equally 22:23 161:16 164:4 91:23,24 92:12 fairly 12:15 33:17 28:16 66:12,20,20 equation 178:5 167:25 180:4 expressed 21:3 fairness 19:9 feelings 176:12 equivalent 156:11 examples 20:17 22:5,11 57:12 fait 57:14 140:5 feels 66:11,12 76:5 essence 65:25 86:5 30:15 33:9 72:18,19 97:22 faith 41:10 51:19 91:17 179:5 exec 56:3 103:23 139:14 109:1,17 138:14 feet 179:2 essential 176:24 Executive 95:12 141:12 155:12,12,13 fell 172:1,4,5 establish 56:21 exercise 89:2 expressing 98:8 178:5 felt 12:23 20:12,16 58:4 64:24,24 136:23 extended 74:12 falling 157:12 21:10 22:20 23:23 69:24 77:14 exercised 117:18 extension 157:7 false 36:18 70:7 25:4 27:5 42:9 established 68:25 exercises 124:14 extent 71:4 108:25 familiar 92:5 112:3 43:23 46:8 47:4 84:2 87:23 Exhibit 175:6 external 11:4,5,8 families 119:1 47:20 48:3 57:16 establishment exist 70:19 52:7 145:14 146:9 family 25:20 32:24 67:4 72:16,24 151:22 existed 87:20 externalising 40:2 119:11,14 73:13,18,19,21 estimate 56:5,14 existence 48:15 145:16 150:21 87:6 136:22 144:1 68:3,8,25 69:9 existing 85:16 externally 10:20 far 9:25 13:8,22 152:2 158:10 70:8 119:12 29:25 14:17 26:19 36:6 Ferns 69:9

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 193 field 48:21 154:22 154:6 155:23 forgotten 159:9 frustrating 168:3 48:23 fifth 120:18 167:1,19 171:17 formal 66:17,18 168:13 169:2 gathering 127:8 figure 6:6,7 179:19 67:3 72:20,21 frustration 75:2 gatherings 52:21 filling 168:21 first-name 171:10 formally 31:9 97:22 98:1 139:14 52:21 filter 164:23 firstly 15:17 30:14 format 163:8,10,12 148:10 gauge 16:2 56:15 final 21:2 50:11 31:13 38:13 formed 152:5 fulfil 156:3 Gaze 69:5 71:19 51:6 60:12,20 140:14 144:14 former 10:16 full 15:11 71:20 general 2:5 5:24 97:19,20 174:25 162:14 forming 178:8 79:3 80:23 98:18 12:7,10 22:8 23:2 177:10,23 fit 102:15 126:25 formula 18:3 99:7 132:20 28:24 29:3 44:14 finalising 88:18 168:22 forthcoming 79:15 fully 66:25 86:8 45:18 61:2 63:23 finally 6:9 15:6 fitting 179:12 fortunate 23:1 92:12 105:15 66:8 69:14 83:2,4 80:25 94:2 130:18 five 47:13 65:24 forum 87:9 156:12 111:25 141:10,16 83:9,12 93:13,20 145:10 147:10 66:4,6 75:5 forward 16:15 17:1 148:9 96:17 138:3 139:8 173:22 178:21 131:14 152:23 35:16 36:19,20 function 69:19 139:8 147:4,8 finance 26:24 flat 81:8,9 37:5,23 39:7 40:6 83:22 92:21 153:7 generalia 60:24 finances 22:10 44:5 flavour 106:8 48:14,16 52:11 161:4 166:21 generally 30:24,25 financial 17:4 21:6 flowchart 129:15 61:24 72:6 81:1 functioning 30:23 66:9 26:10 37:25 38:3 flowed 34:21 88:9 141:19 fund 57:2 92:19 generously 43:22 39:24 172:10 focus 97:21 127:17 145:12 148:25 fundamentally genuine 71:1 177:6 financially 26:18 144:4 172:2 173:9 154:5 178:11 44:3 geographical 136:3 find 43:20 49:13 focused 173:19 found 13:17 22:10 funded 29:12,23 168:24 58:5 77:15 97:25 follow 4:19 11:20 27:9 33:3 38:4 57:12 84:19 85:15 getting 16:13,17 99:1 103:5 137:8 15:15 17:7 37:2 75:17 76:1 147:16 89:20 91:18 92:4 19:10 135:17 153:11 173:2 39:21 99:25 100:6 168:6 179:2 92:15 155:10 172:15 fine 27:20 100:7,10 102:6 four 35:19 36:23 funding 23:19 179:10 finish 151:22 139:20,23 177:2 52:20 53:2 95:18 56:25 57:3,4 give 10:4,9 13:5 finishing 102:18 followed 5:12 10:8 141:18,23 142:5 66:22 85:10,18 30:14,16 39:23 first 1:5 2:14,15 3:3 10:9 63:2,3,5,5,6 156:3 157:9,10 86:14 92:1 140:14 40:25 56:24 61:2 3:10 6:18 17:11 101:20,25 102:25 159:5 167:12 141:8 70:7,9 73:20,22 21:12 24:1 27:11 following 10:2 19:2 169:4 178:24 Funnily 173:7 85:23 97:15 30:16 34:9,22 42:13 45:9 50:17 fourth 64:2 104:13 further 4:3 31:8 106:23 143:24 36:10 37:3,9 62:24 84:24 97:6 120:13 60:11 61:14 69:16 145:6,19 154:18 38:11,22 43:11,11 101:12 102:11,23 framework 55:1 74:15 83:18 87:2 161:16,20 176:6 45:20 51:11 52:22 103:6 106:23 144:6 104:12,25 124:11 180:4 54:1 59:24 60:9 107:7 118:25 Francis 35:5,6,12 173:22 given 2:24 16:8 61:18 66:8 79:23 119:5 122:22 35:25 36:9 37:4,9 future 6:19 48:13 19:5 20:13 25:14 80:8 84:13,15 149:11 39:13 40:5 52:15 68:16 79:23 25:19,22 38:22 88:23 96:20,23 footnote 120:7 frank 99:7 146:18 165:22 51:24 62:14 64:17 99:18 102:15 force 147:14 freedom 128:23 67:11 99:15 106:15 108:15,22 167:20 Friday 80:8 181:11 G 109:16 118:15 111:18 115:17 foreword 133:20 friend 161:4,7,11 g 58:7 106:13 123:24 124:19 116:10 117:2 forgetting 180:14 friendly 163:13 game 55:7 126:23 128:7,17 120:2 129:2 136:2 forgive 177:24 front 7:7 52:23,23 gaps 168:22 140:14 141:5,22 143:25 148:18 forgiveness 35:13 137:8 166:10 gather 110:4 141:24 153:25 151:15 153:17 35:14 76:8 fruition 168:2 gathered 9:10 157:19 159:11

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 194

162:24 163:8,19 169:9 170:1,6,9 hand 43:24 149:19 179:19,20 hierarchy 81:12 164:6 172:14 177:1,11,12,16,17 153:17 heard 6:13,14 18:5 high 128:8 156:14 gives 129:16 good 1:3,5 3:18 handbook 59:14 20:11,11 34:3 high-level 54:14 go 3:3 8:24 9:11,14 7:23 17:23 22:2 handle 11:16 51:13,23 68:15 80:3 11:3 17:14 24:11 23:25 36:22 43:16 handled 19:14 76:13 77:3 85:1 highlight 122:23 32:25 34:9,9,22 52:6 75:18,20 25:25 41:9,10 90:8 110:12 133:22 167:1 36:6 38:8,11 76:15,16 77:5,7 126:18 134:18 151:17 176:1 44:25 50:13 60:19 77:25 101:19,23 handling 114:2,5 156:12,14 174:17 highlighted 133:21 66:8 71:2 74:15 102:24 104:21 handover 45:14 175:25 145:2 159:14 76:14 78:11 79:3 106:10 140:21 hands 44:5 hearing 1:4 55:11 166:1 180:9 80:23 86:15 89:9 153:5,10 155:10 hands-on 103:9 106:23 153:17 highlights 159:13 95:7 96:23 97:17 goodwill 64:8 happen 32:1 56:4 181:10 highly 177:8 99:13,16,18 Gordon 132:14 63:12 99:25 heart 43:17 171:20 hindered 67:15 100:21,25 104:12 governance 106:10 127:19 146:23 heaven 78:18 92:16 106:7 110:21,22 government 54:3 156:4 168:6 169:3 held 54:6 61:19 historic 150:25 114:16 115:9 grasp 5:7 144:12 happened 6:3 99:17 136:11 historical 69:11 116:3 117:2,2 173:1 33:20,22 40:12 help 17:15 27:3 history 6:1 25:23 120:7 125:10 great 25:23 175:25 51:19 62:6 63:11 43:7 52:2 60:1 25:24 42:12 108:7 126:4 129:13,18 177:7 72:4 110:10 89:9 97:4 101:6 hit 156:18 130:19 133:19 greater 87:13 121:18 161:23 115:1 122:19 hoc 165:11 138:15,18 142:15 greatest 75:2 happening 42:18 133:4 138:8 hold 142:24 160:23 151:15 153:8 green 10:7 61:13 135:17 139:18 147:12 167:21 180:14 162:9,10 163:25 groomed 33:4 happens 125:16 152:19 153:5 holding 61:9 167:1 173:8 ground 164:17 126:1 149:9 168:5 154:15 157:23 holds 139:20 174:13 177:4,23 group 52:1 59:15 happily 14:22 161:6 162:16 Hollins 166:17 179:19 94:7 150:12 happy 41:1 149:1 166:7 169:15 177:17 God 178:4,6 151:23,24 154:11 157:2 177:4 171:22 172:12 Hollis 8:22 9:12 goes 5:25 45:6 70:3 155:7,22 159:14 hard 16:2 58:25 175:15 177:12 Holy 109:2,5,16 122:16 124:18 169:4 176:2 harm 116:21,23 178:2 138:14,18 125:23 126:21 179:10 117:16 118:2 helped 19:6 49:19 homicides 150:18 going 6:16 13:11 guaranteed 57:4 121:16 125:3,12 151:1 honest 156:22 16:7 18:23 24:7 guidance 40:21,22 125:13,19,19 helpful 7:22 28:21 175:4 177:1 27:15,21 28:17 90:7 108:21 120:5 126:19 128:2 38:4 70:8 honesty 171:19 38:24 39:17 42:15 150:13 172:13 132:6 133:24 helping 141:3 hope 17:15 18:19 52:11 66:13 71:18 guide 129:16 163:3 134:10 157:13 178:8,9 76:21 162:11 71:19 72:25 73:20 guideline 63:16 harmed 121:11,12 helpline 66:1 horses 19:25 79:2 100:2,13 guidelines 5:9 8:17 head 1:19 34:11 140:25 141:9 hospital 46:7 103:14 110:17 15:16 17:8 18:2 50:25 150:11 helps 92:23 137:6 hostile 70:24 111:17 114:16 37:2 39:13 heading 6:9 100:5 Herald 49:17 50:3 hostility 71:10 117:6 118:20 guilty 75:17 76:2 headlines 70:25 Herald's 49:21 hour 170:13 176:11 135:17 136:20 health 54:2 120:21 here' 174:19 hours 95:24,25 145:12 149:20 H healthy 29:20,25 Hexham 111:9 house 36:2 160:25 161:14 Halfway 3:23 hear 20:10,20 hiatus 14:12 HR 120:13 164:13 166:19 hall 126:16 33:20 50:7 132:13 hidden 71:12 huge 165:18 167:13 168:15 halved 25:16 166:19 177:17 hides 81:4 humanity 78:9

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 195 humble 177:6 implement 26:3 151:6 167:3 individuals 23:15 input 70:20 115:1 humbly 35:13 113:9 incapable 76:16 116:12 117:25 153:2 160:13 humility 52:10,11 implementation 78:3 158:16 INQ004653 49:15 52:12 171:9,19 6:23 7:13 8:19 incidents 72:8 induction 56:8 68:3 INQ004675 34:7 hurt 34:17 35:10 46:12 57:20,24 include 60:6 119:11 ineffectual 147:17 INQ004684 79:2 152:25 153:25 58:5 63:10 64:15 145:22 163:2 influence 26:7 INQ004685 74:13 160:21,25 161:17 73:5 110:25 included 61:16 147:18 153:20,24 INQ004686 80:24 162:12,15 172:17 137:14 143:12 80:3 171:18 influencing 169:7,7 INQ004711 50:13 174:16 implemented 5:12 includes 85:11 inform 152:20 INQ004766 129:14 hyphen 4:17 8:14 59:18,21 142:7,7 153:24 INQ004784 115:10 60:16 63:8 84:21 including 59:12 informal 46:17 INQ004786 130:20 I 110:21 138:6,25 152:8 154:19 information 25:15 133:19 idea 19:4,5,8 42:5 139:1 165:3 173:19 26:4 101:19,24 inquiries 97:9 85:23 132:4 implementing 6:18 inconclusive 75:4 102:24 103:10 inquiry 27:16 154:18 163:7 89:13 122:18,24 increase 70:21 104:21 108:21 46:25 50:22 51:8 165:22 166:5 123:4 124:15,22 increasing 70:20 109:14,15,24 51:11 52:1 58:18 ideas 155:9 135:11 independence 110:4 116:22 58:22 61:21 identified 3:23 implications 21:16 28:22 41:19 47:5 119:1 124:2 145:10,11 146:14 35:12 55:17 imply 20:8 83:23 87:12 91:16 125:13 127:9 147:11 150:25 155:23 171:25 importance 5:7 independent 3:5 128:16 144:18 insight 25:24 identify 76:21 86:3 152:7,8 22:23,24 27:6 152:18 158:4,7,15 152:25 153:13 123:15 165:22 165:14 28:15 29:10 30:10 158:19 insignificant 36:19 identity 15:14 important 17:20 33:14 41:2 72:2 informed 18:8 inspections 145:21 if' 35:10 20:15 22:22 39:11 73:8,9 82:15 84:4 44:20 45:3 46:2,6 inspector 48:11 ignore 32:16 173:3 43:16 48:9 63:23 89:6 90:7,19 91:9 93:3 107:4 118:19 instance 34:23 37:3 ignored 34:6 81:3 91:5 133:22 91:17,20,24 92:1 119:14 45:20 66:22 88:2 ignoring 39:12 159:15 161:9,24 92:3,5 97:8 101:2 informing 116:17 92:3 108:3 117:3 ii 106:13 163:2 171:3,7 103:22 104:7,9 informing/influe... 126:15,20 135:11 IICSA 97:2 98:21 176:23 134:22 141:2 153:1 139:6,22 141:6 imagine 5:2 16:14 impose 9:21 143:7 145:13 inherited 29:2 144:22 145:19 imbalance 78:16 impotent 33:18 146:8 46:15 147:6 148:5 immediate 110:12 impressed 171:8 independently 53:5 inhibit 73:25 74:2 155:23 113:8 116:15,20 impression 70:7 90:3 inhibition 158:22 instances 30:13 117:1,2 125:2,12 168:4 indicated 31:21 inhibitor 41:5 instigated 57:25 125:19,21 126:2,8 improve 103:1 37:4 initial 88:3 161:23 institution 77:25 126:13,14,19,24 146:17 153:22 indicates 35:9 162:19 78:1 127:5 128:1 improved 19:19 121:16 initially 119:13 institutional 129:21 130:13 103:3 individual 5:11 157:6 162:18 150:25 immediately 18:20 improving 111:14 8:19 18:10 21:14 initiative 10:21 instrumental 19:10 113:2 129:23 in-depth 145:3 25:11 30:20 48:20 81:19 85:9 157:14 insufficient 131:4,9 139:23 inability 33:10,12 104:10,16 148:25 167:6 136:14 impact 21:14 33:12 inaccurate 38:19 149:4 178:17 initiatives 157:11 insurance 20:6 40:1 105:21 inappropriate 179:17 innocent 78:21 175:14,17 121:23 148:11,11 26:22,23 individually 36:15 inordinately insurers 100:13,21 165:18 180:15 inaugural 150:6 38:2 167:23 105:11,15,17,21

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 196

175:11,20 151:7 156:17 135:2,13 141:7,8 143:18 162:4 102:10 108:9 integrity 60:3,13 157:11,15 163:24 142:10 143:14 key 8:5,7,10 47:20 144:17 173:25 167:12 172:15 148:20 154:8 61:3 70:4 71:8 knowledge 46:6 intent 36:4 177:12,19 178:17 160:8,20 165:12 76:8 105:7 151:12 74:17 151:9 intention 92:25 179:23 175:3 177:1,5 152:11 153:15 152:24 153:13 intentions 76:16 involvement it' 49:20 154:8 159:1 160:8 known 131:2 151:5 interaction 176:17 113:17 169:14,20 item 21:2 45:2 69:3 160:10 166:8 interest 141:12 involves 114:6 69:4 97:18 177:20 170:14 171:11,17 L 157:21 involving 166:15 171:25 172:5,6,19 La 39:17 interested 89:7 Ireland 52:20,25 J 177:15 178:4,6 laborious 65:22 interesting 11:18 97:10,10 156:10 Jane 3:19 14:16 kind 20:1 22:25 labyrinth 32:11 13:17 21:17 23:11 ironed 17:1 15:22 31:22 32:3 42:14 labyrinthian 16:10 37:8,20 75:23 irregular 25:8 January 45:1 153:16 154:7,9,11 16:11,13 34:5 176:17 irrelevant 6:10,12 169:23 170:24 156:7 158:5 162:3 lack 4:11,18 10:11 interests 118:16 irritating 24:11 jeopardizes 175:14 162:18 163:15,19 40:20,22 43:1 155:7 irritation 24:13 Jesuits 17:23 164:9 166:20 LADO 122:1 interface 148:5 issue 4:23 12:18,20 job 96:1 141:24 170:12 172:2 127:11 129:23 internally 11:16 12:24 17:11,14,18 145:25 146:13 174:14,19 lady 154:24 intervene 13:22 17:20 18:20 22:9 John 149:23 150:3 knew 23:5 26:6 laid 79:8 intervening 62:6 23:9,22 24:5,6,9 182:3 44:16 landscape 87:18 intervention 119:6 24:11 26:24 29:16 joined 7:11 14:3 know 5:13 6:3,5 142:17 interview 2:9 22:4 30:14,21 31:10,11 joint 82:22 167:6 7:4 16:10 19:25 Lang 14:15 22:7,12 51:3 31:17 32:13 34:8 joking 176:19 22:1 25:21 26:4,6 language 78:6,7 82:25 83:5,20 34:19 45:3 47:20 journal 2:3 26:19 32:10 34:13 large 52:20 81:8 167:16 52:17 68:19,20 journalist 38:23 36:18 37:4,4,11 late 75:4 interviewed 2:4 70:3 76:7,8 90:14 JS 60:10 38:13 40:19 43:24 latest 162:5 167:12 152:6 97:11,12 98:3 judged 35:1 44:1 47:12 49:12 176:9 interviewing 83:10 109:11,20,23 July 1:16 53:24 56:1 57:8 62:2,3,3 laughing 176:19 intrinsic 134:1,4,16 118:20 123:10 58:9 74:8,11 63:15,16 64:18 law 41:5,12 61:1,3 introduce 105:6 127:10 131:6 78:25 82:20 84:24 65:12,12,24 66:11 81:16 100:6,13,20 introduced 14:5 132:18 134:9 91:13 136:19 66:24 67:19 68:19 100:23,25 139:24 invaluable 153:20 142:8 148:2 149:6 176:10 70:5 71:4,5,13 law' 50:20 investigate 58:2 164:10,19 165:25 jump 127:24 73:14 75:1 76:7,8 lawyer 97:8,8 147:25 172:11 173:18 June 53:23 54:19 77:15,22 78:5,6,7 141:2 investigating issued 90:10 80:15 151:21 78:11,17 81:15 lawyers 20:6,7 38:2 150:18 issues 3:22 11:3 junior 34:16 101:20,24 102:25 lay 7:11 14:18,20 investigation 12:12 14:14 21:7 justice 17:11,18 104:18 108:14 33:11 48:9 53:23 113:18 128:22 40:23 47:3 49:11 54:3 78:24 128:24 123:22 129:5 67:7 82:15,19 investigations 55:13 61:24 63:21 173:20 130:12 132:3 83:1,21 93:9,18 148:22 150:11 63:22 67:23 71:16 justification 129:3 133:14,16,17 97:13 99:7 invitation 99:15 79:23 81:14,21 136:12 144:23 layer 87:8 K involve 118:10 98:21 100:4 148:13 164:15 layman 130:12 involved 79:6,11 102:22 103:4 Kathy 38:17 176:1 177:22 layperson 14:9 104:1 114:3 141:7 104:10 105:15 keeping 157:25 179:10,13 84:4 146:24 149:4 107:1 112:12 kept 44:20 95:23 knowing 67:22 laypersons 119:25

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 197

125:9 49:16,24 74:9,13 little 81:11,22 175:8 177:10 makeup 136:3 lead 69:1 84:8 78:25 79:2 98:4,6 143:11 154:16 180:19,20 154:16 157:4 154:11 161:25 98:8,12 109:22 160:9 161:1 looking 8:8 11:5 making 5:23 36:3 leader 5:21 8:20 110:5,11 170:16 173:22 15:4 16:16 22:4 55:2 57:18 63:4 26:9 28:19 33:8 level 3:5 32:3 53:3 liturgy 178:9,15 24:4 30:8 54:23 63:11 78:12 80:20 33:24 35:8 36:24 54:2 56:25 57:3 live 37:11 40:3,4 57:21 64:1 65:18 134:23 141:5 39:12 114:7 67:20 70:5 104:4 livelihoods 128:7 67:25 68:16 84:12 153:1 168:22 124:10,18 127:14 128:8 140:13 lives 16:12 40:4 85:5 92:22 93:16 176:19 179:22,25 137:24 139:22 164:17 173:25 97:17 103:11 malaise 33:9 leaders 5:6,11,25 levels 75:19 126:12 loads 77:3 105:25 109:2 manageable 42:25 8:18 20:18 24:9 liable 48:3 local 1:24 15:14 110:18 120:11,12 managed 28:23 30:7 50:9,10 90:5 lie 99:22 19:18 41:18 54:3 127:13 133:18 89:22 112:12 96:5,13 137:16,17 lies 148:4 65:15 92:4 98:13 137:6 141:13 management 42:16 leadership 142:21 life 23:6,9 40:2,2 104:4 108:3 112:4 142:7 144:18 115:12 116:11 142:23 142:25 118:4,8 119:9 155:20 156:3 119:22 141:14 leads 51:6 90:6 lifts 170:18 120:13,21 121:25 166:20 167:16 manager 45:19 leaflet 161:17 light 10:6 71:12 123:8 124:24 looks 4:8 106:8 managerial 76:19 162:16,21 163:2 likewise 154:5 142:21 145:19 lose 165:16 84:8 163:16,19 164:6 156:16 161:11 164:25 165:22 loss 15:14,18 18:14 manages 126:18 172:18 174:16 165:18 locally 29:21 173:9 managing 15:20 leaflets 154:1,3 Limbrick 89:3 99:4 location 45:7 lost 32:11 39:25 45:15 73:4 120:5 160:21 163:3 102:3 109:13 London 42:10 lot 19:11 96:3 180:13 leaked 109:24 148:20 43:14 45:8 103:19,19 117:5 mandate 113:15 learning 3:16 96:12 Limbrick's 112:24 long 17:25 25:23 120:18 150:22 141:19 148:9 lease 43:25 Limerick 136:21 116:7 143:2 157:4 157:11 159:21 mandated 84:19 leave 33:19 81:3 line 28:23 45:19 167:23 160:18 170:7,7 89:11 147:24 178:4,6 89:11,19,21 91:6 longer 35:20 37:11 175:24 178:14 mandatory 50:15 led 6:22 16:20 21:6 lines 14:2 45:18 39:20 75:20 179:23 180:6 50:18,23 51:2 62:1 72:17 160:15 105:14 130:3 lots 156:12,16 116:5,7 121:6 left 14:12 47:13 link 102:7 134:18 longitudinal 36:22 175:25 122:15 127:4 130:11 164:9 135:3,7,8,22 look 11:1 17:15 lovely 156:16 146:19,20,25 legal 20:13,18 160:11,14 45:1 58:24 59:8 179:11 147:1,4 21:15 116:8 links 49:9 178:15 59:23 60:20 62:9 low 47:18 Manero 99:6 158:20,21,21 list 170:11 62:17 64:13,19 lunch 94:18 manual 102:7 legislation 55:5 listen 36:12 37:3,22 74:24 76:24 77:9 March 1:15 2:14 72:8 88:2 120:8 147:16 171:2 78:2 81:14 103:8 M 58:13 59:5 80:1 120:12 147:3 172:22 173:2,4 106:13 108:10 magnified 101:18 96:22 99:2,18 152:9 175:21 120:20 127:24 magnify 2:20 162:6 167:10 lend 26:12 listen/take 173:15 130:18 144:21,22 Mail 71:1 Marcus 12:10,19 length 168:1 listened 34:3 35:15 148:20 151:13 main 76:4 174:20 22:7 23:2 27:9 lengthy 79:3,11 156:25 170:8 154:4,6 160:25 maintain 83:22 28:20 29:5,5 86:9 171:10 174:12 161:19 171:12,17 maintained 128:9 43:12,19 46:18 Let's 161:19 listening 39:15 179:22 180:8 major 23:9 86:24 60:9 letter 34:23 36:7 163:21 170:8,20 looked 10:21 62:2 majority 159:24 marry 40:3 38:6,14 39:2 172:19,25 174:21 123:20 130:15 173:13 Marshall 149:21,23

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 198

150:2,3 153:11 measures 70:17 178:24 179:24 98:10 143:11 162:14 167:18 measuring 70:16 meets 95:18 118:1 mind 36:20 88:5 monitors 56:18 175:15 180:22,25 media 27:6,7,8,14 124:15 157:9,10 mind-set 153:16 Monsignor 42:25 181:2 182:3 28:1,4,8,16 40:25 159:5 minds 162:3 132:14 Martin 34:12,25 41:2 153:3 member 7:11 14:10 mine 49:22 month 45:9 95:23 38:8,10 40:15 meet 12:14,17,23 53:23 62:20 67:7 minimal 64:3 95:25 52:22 20:4,19 26:16 70:25 73:24 74:18 103:19 months 2:25 12:17 mass 35:6 30:17 31:12,18,23 74:20 83:10 93:9 ministry 36:1 49:5 14:13 59:19,21 match 73:3,3 32:14,20 33:2,6 93:18 99:7 121:9 128:20,25 129:4 62:15 66:3,4 matches 35:24 33:25 36:11,11 154:25 158:9,16 Ministry' 60:3,13 95:24 99:3 112:14 matter 5:12 11:4 37:3,22,25 39:22 160:11,14 179:12 Minors 51:16 138:6 160:3 14:24 19:23 38:22 44:13 87:23 95:17 members 13:24 171:15 morning 1:3,5,6 42:17 44:1 62:22 95:19 99:15 16:24 18:5 19:15 minute 180:14 53:11 116:23 117:13 122:17,24 123:3,7 64:8 73:1,10,10 minutes 20:22 mother 32:14 33:3 118:9 122:13 123:10 124:8,17 73:23 79:9 94:4 41:21 42:21 44:23 33:6 123:18 124:12 124:22 99:8 119:24,24 47:13 58:3,6,8 motivation 173:14 125:13 126:24 meeting 2:14,22 9:9 154:10,17,19 69:13 91:12 92:11 Moultrie 48:10,13 137:22 174:25 10:4 20:8,23 24:1 155:16,17 157:5 92:13 96:21 97:17 move 12:4 24:10 matters 13:10 21:6 24:1 39:14 41:21 157:18,20,23 131:14 160:6 42:25 43:7,13,21 93:25 109:6 44:15,17,23,24 165:2,19 167:12 misinterpreted 44:7 52:16 63:25 137:15 153:12 45:9 54:18 57:5,5 167:25 170:3 132:15 135:4 110:17 148:16 Maureen 167:15 57:11 60:11 61:15 178:25 mismatch 22:25 moved 45:7 84:3 168:18 61:17,19 63:18,23 membership 93:8 missed 54:18 79:21 136:22 McGrath 167:15 75:15 77:11 79:21 93:17,23 80:16 movements 44:20 168:18 79:22 80:15,15,17 memory 153:10 Missionaries 35:9 moves 62:24 mean 9:9 15:9 88:25 91:13 92:7 Menavia 26:15,18 38:10 moving 6:16 22:3 17:10 22:19 26:14 96:22 98:20 99:13 27:4 32:16,23 mistaken 15:7 42:3 84:12 40:5 74:20 75:12 99:17 102:17 Mennini 13:9 mistakes 78:12 Mueller 41:15,16 76:23 83:25 125:20 126:11 mentioned 33:9 misunderstanding mustard 67:1 103:12 104:1,16 139:13 140:12,15 165:5 169:20 43:8,9 mutual 78:19 83:17 105:14 107:19 141:16 150:7 mentions 150:20 Mmm 19:3 28:9,11 myth 172:23 112:16 122:19 154:6 160:4,5,6,9 message 159:8 model 106:10 123:6 139:21 160:22 161:23 164:3,23 169:13 moment 7:3 23:17 N 159:22 160:18 162:1,5 165:13 messages 38:15 93:6 94:17 149:21 N 181:14 161:6 164:18 167:3,14,15,19 172:19 161:20 169:19 name 1:12 53:21 170:6 175:5 168:17 169:24,25 met 8:23 12:6,11 180:23 82:13 119:25 means 101:6 170:4,25 176:10 13:2 16:25 38:2 monies 136:11,14 121:2 106:21 132:5 176:14 180:9 51:21 75:23 84:21 140:23 named 52:15 135:19 meetings 8:2 13:7 147:12 148:13 monitor 10:20,23 names 94:15 meant 7:4 46:7 94:24 95:18 96:4 156:16 170:2 22:24,25 102:19 NAPAC 40:7 87:7 111:21 110:13 140:8 171:4 176:13 102:21 narrative 25:24 115:19,25 116:1 141:7,18,23 142:5 methodology monitoring 7:1,13 145:5 133:5 135:6,8 148:19 157:10 144:17 22:14 52:7 84:19 narrow 7:23 measure 70:15 159:22 160:2,12 middle 129:19 89:13 111:3,11,22 national 1:14 3:17 112:2 169:4 176:22 Middlesbrough 135:16,23 142:14 8:17 15:15,21,21

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 199

17:7 18:1 20:23 104:2 105:6 152:2,6 161:13,13 nice 161:14 numbering 126:6 26:16 32:16 39:13 108:13,25 110:17 168:25 173:10 Nichols 30:18 31:1 numbers 56:10,13 42:10 107:13 113:15,17 114:20 178:13 42:13 51:17 169:7 68:6 70:2 71:2 137:11 147:20 129:8 130:21 needed 12:20,25 169:21,24 Nuncio 13:6,13 164:19 166:15 133:18 134:23 24:17 25:21 26:1 nine 66:3 150:10 32:10 36:2 110:14 169:1 135:6,14,16,21 30:10 86:13 88:23 no-one 172:24 nurses 91:1 nationally 29:21 136:12 137:10,14 88:24 90:15 97:25 Nolan 15:12 42:13 nutshell 178:2 nations 70:13 137:22 139:14 98:25 100:24 103:16 106:15 nature 40:23 68:20 140:1 141:10,22 102:2 140:24 non-clergy 59:11 O 71:3,4 75:7 144:1,4 145:1,14 141:9 152:12 non-compliance O'Driscoll 93:10 158:23 166:16 147:24 148:8,9 needs 22:13 40:17 137:15,23 O'Loan 61:16,20 167:21 151:18,21 152:20 52:10,11 55:7 nonemployment 75:16 89:1 Navy 54:2 158:17 159:4,8,10 64:10 71:9 77:2,8 83:22 O'Toole 60:9 NCS000002_002 159:15,19,22,24 77:9,12,13 78:1,1 nonreligious objection 15:1,2 89:10 160:2,5,9,11,12 78:23 81:18 86:13 155:18 objective 11:4 NCSC 1:15,22 2:18 160:16,16 161:10 87:16 91:21 92:14 normal 65:21 66:2 39:10 55:24 3:15 4:4,19 6:10 165:2 169:18 104:4 106:20,22 normally 63:2,3,6 objectives 55:16,18 6:11 7:11 8:5 177:13 178:20 127:6 134:7 142:5 115:3 64:25 92:17 99:20 10:3,14 12:5 14:3 179:3,16 180:3 144:19 145:1,3 Northern 97:10 106:4,9 144:10,11 22:17 24:4 26:3 NCSC's 28:22 146:7,22 156:10 objectivity 11:7 27:5 29:7,11,16 106:2 negative 104:13,25 note 35:9 41:5 obligation 158:21 30:20 32:5 40:17 NCSC/CSAS 87:11 negotiated 45:12 62:19 104:25 159:22 40:21,23 41:19 97:23 67:4 72:5 157:18 observation 167:18 42:24 43:2,5,10 near 141:25 negotiation 57:10 noted 42:23 43:1 observer 13:10,19 45:21 46:11 50:16 nearly 159:12 66:13,20 67:8 69:15 100:7 36:8 51:8 53:23 54:19 necessarily 90:23 72:25 140:3 notes 99:17 130:1 Observing 171:2 54:21,22 55:11,16 161:3 neither 66:18 notice 12:17,23 obtained 160:6 56:17 57:5,7,11 necessary 39:5 net 129:11 105:19 obtaining 158:20 57:16 64:6,18,21 63:13 121:20 nettle 173:1 notified 109:12 obvious 33:17 65:7,20 67:7 68:8 129:1 142:4 156:1 never 6:13 43:13 notoriously 38:19 77:10,11 97:24 69:6 71:23,24 necessity 80:11,16 65:16 66:16 67:24 Nottingham 54:11 obviously 5:14 72:15,15,17,21 need 8:24 11:15 72:9,11 73:19 November 2:19 20:15,17 22:11 73:7,8 79:11,13 15:20 21:23 26:4 74:23 79:8 110:24 50:13 82:17 78:10 101:22 79:17 81:1 82:15 27:4,6 28:15 114:11 167:17 181:11 138:7 154:17 83:1 84:2,12,24 35:21 53:2 66:24 nevertheless 139:1 NSPCC 10:19,23 174:2 178:23 85:2,5 86:4,4,18 68:19 69:14 70:13 149:4 Nuala 61:20 occasion 28:14 87:6 88:6,15 89:3 78:8,13 96:17 new 45:14 66:25 number 10:25 137:21 170:2 89:10,14,19 91:9 97:12 100:11,20 108:7 115:20 20:11 30:13,14 occasions 20:11 91:19,22 92:21,24 107:22 108:5,8 144:20 157:13 36:18 37:6 52:4 128:22 147:13 93:2,8,23 94:23 111:24 120:7 164:24 177:20 56:5,9 57:16 58:8 occur 145:21 95:17,21 96:22,25 121:22 125:22 179:11 68:4,9,22 69:10 occurred 95:3 97:2,5,13 99:7,12 128:23 134:3 news 27:15 69:20,20 145:9,10 102:17,17 99:18,20,22,23 135:13 136:4,8 newspaper 34:8 146:20 147:12 occurring 174:9 100:1,12,17,18 139:10 141:1 38:18 162:11 167:2 October 1:1 49:17 102:21 103:24 142:1 144:22 NHS 84:10 112:4 170:2 177:24 84:14 88:12 109:8

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 200

109:21 114:11 opinion 74:1 97:15 157:2 168:4 125:10 127:25 paragraphs 57:21 115:14,21 159:16 160:22 overarching 104:4 128:5,6,18 129:18 127:12 162:7 165:13 opportunities 2:23 139:7,9 130:20,23 133:19 paramount 158:14 167:11 30:1 96:13 144:8 overcome 139:2 137:7 142:15 parcel 88:11 odds 90:16 opportunity 38:22 overlooked 77:23 151:15 153:12 pardon 49:25 offence 121:13 51:12 79:14 oversee 49:19 53:5 162:9,25 165:6 parents 6:5 118:10 offender 180:13,14 143:25 64:20 65:14 167:1 169:21 118:15,19 offer 26:25 36:12 opposed 55:14 overseeing 42:15 173:8 174:25 parents/carers 37:25 119:15 103:9 104:10 oversees 110:17 175:10 177:24,24 118:7 offered 2:9 38:2 142:8 oversight 25:10,18 paid 17:18 parish 1:24 2:1 39:22,23 45:6 opposition 42:5,7 29:3,13,17,22,25 pain 36:25 172:9 33:4 89:25 119:7 84:1 119:10 149:5 68:13 30:3,4 46:15 47:8 painful 35:20 149:2 119:12 126:17 offering 39:15 order 14:10 17:6 67:10,16 90:7 panel 82:25 83:10 164:14 152:24 19:22,24 20:3,10 135:23 85:14 86:2 89:14 parishes 169:14 office 17:5 27:8,14 31:4,6 33:8 34:12 overview 63:24 93:5 105:7 114:21 parishioner 174:17 28:1,8,16 41:25 36:16 37:1,13 69:7 97:8,11 115:2,3,8 143:8 part 3:24 9:7 16:12 42:4,4 45:15 39:17 45:13 51:13 overwhelming 150:5 151:5 152:3 17:3,9,11 39:10 128:20 129:1 54:15 73:24 98:5 77:24 154:10,16 157:4,8 45:11 46:17 57:17 officer 122:1 150:9 101:2 111:24 owned 145:17 157:18,20,23 84:10 86:7 88:11 officers 91:1 120:15 148:4,6 ownership 146:5 158:19 174:3 88:22 98:4 99:5 officially 45:8 orders 5:11 17:3,13 165:16 180:24 99:10 100:23 Ofsted 11:19 17:22 18:11 19:15 Oxford 23:7 Panorama 51:3 102:7,8,19 105:20 oh 177:23 19:16 20:18 40:25 Papal 13:6,13 107:12 109:19 okay 7:8 115:24 164:15 169:15,16 P 32:10 36:2 110:14 111:7 115:6,23 117:8 162:19 Ordinarily 95:23 PA 25:22 44:19 paper 55:25 69:6 118:22 122:21 oldest 40:10 organisation 30:5 49:11 70:22 71:18,19 127:8 131:24 omission 132:5 56:2 78:15 81:5,6 pace 65:19 77:16 79:23 80:3 133:20 135:22,24 on' 133:24 81:8,16,25 92:2 package 45:7,24 80:4 81:3,13 140:23 142:6 once 11:25 12:16 107:21 161:9,10 paedophile 150:12 151:18 144:7 145:1 45:14 53:1 65:23 original 43:19 paedophiles 35:18 papers 58:3 147:14 148:22 94:24 95:4,8,9 originally 46:1 36:23 71:5,6 par 7:25 149:1,8 161:9,10 160:2 164:8 page 6:18 15:5 paragraph 6:17 8:9 179:6 ones 74:5 originates 113:25 30:16 34:9 50:14 15:4 16:16 22:4 participant 51:24 ongoing 49:11 Ostensibly 44:14 54:24 57:22 59:8 30:8,15 34:10 participants 52:5 137:4 143:6 ought 47:9 90:9 60:19,20 62:9,17 38:11 42:22 54:23 145:10 167:10,11 178:1,1 145:11 62:24,24 64:2 56:24 57:22 64:1 particular 11:3,3 178:3,25 180:18 outline 8:3 69:4 79:3 84:16 64:5 65:18 68:1 12:9,18 32:2 34:4 onwards 68:1 outlined 42:24 85:5 91:14 92:24 74:15 79:4 84:16 34:20 41:7 61:12 open 12:19 23:3 110:20 96:23 97:18 99:19 92:23 93:16 98:4 90:11 92:19 93:23 29:6 outset 15:8,9,10 101:16,16 103:14 105:25 109:2 99:14 122:21 openly 20:12 173:17 104:12 105:5 110:18,23 114:16 132:2 136:13 openness 171:19 outside 97:1 101:11 106:1,7 109:3 119:5 120:2 121:6 143:20 148:5 operate 127:1 104:6 105:18 110:19,23 113:6 128:6 129:3 138:1 153:25 179:17 operational 88:4 107:5 141:19 114:17 115:15 142:15 153:11 180:9 106:4 147:7 154:23 116:4 122:22 161:2 178:23 particularly 33:3

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 201

42:22 50:23 23:5 24:8 33:11 person 18:23 28:4 111:22 112:15,22 plenary 94:23 118:15 121:20 37:1 40:2,3,25 32:19 62:11,14 113:4 126:16 140:8 166:6 172:19 43:3,20 44:16 75:20,22 114:1 132:12 133:2 pm 94:19,20,22 179:16 48:21 50:8 52:23 116:22 117:16 134:21,24 135:10 131:16,18,20 parties 89:8 66:5,7 70:4 74:3,3 125:12 130:12 136:4 138:11 181:9 Partnership 54:12 75:19 76:16 77:5 148:1 167:13 139:12,21 140:22 point 3:4 4:8,9,16 parts 7:5 25:11,19 77:22 90:24 92:7 172:14 141:1,9 144:9 4:18 5:13 8:5 26:5 39:8 67:11 94:8,8 101:9 person's 121:3,23 145:23 146:23 17:22 21:2 22:2 87:16 106:18 107:6,7,16 108:5 130:11 placing 36:2 23:18 27:7 31:17 177:15 111:25 120:6,22 personal 158:3 plan 31:17 56:21 33:15,25 44:8 party 91:2 97:15 125:16 128:16 172:20 179:15 79:12,15,17,22 49:21 52:6 57:13 112:23 141:4 130:8 133:24 personally 57:25 80:9,19 106:3,5,6 60:19 62:9,19,25 pass 41:2 169:18 134:4 141:4 143:8 169:4 106:8 144:6,7,10 63:4,9,17 64:9,14 passed 19:2 144:17 145:8,25 personnel 23:18 154:12,14 160:7 65:7 68:24,24 passing 158:14,18 146:22 149:6,12 91:4 161:22 165:14 70:5 72:22 79:4 pastoral 20:13,15 155:24 156:16,17 perspective 7:12 166:25 169:22 80:20 81:4,13 37:25 38:3 39:16 159:21 161:25 76:19 77:18 105:8 176:9 177:20 85:15 86:14 91:14 39:23 65:23 93:1 166:2 172:3,21 152:19 154:2 plans 10:12 178:11 91:25 92:6 96:24 140:17 157:14,14 173:1 174:2,21,23 165:8 170:10 playgroup 126:15 100:4 101:17 157:15 167:4 176:2,4 178:5,7 174:7 175:17 please 1:9,12 2:15 104:9,13,20,25 patiently 170:8 178:11 179:10,13 176:23 20:21 31:3 34:7,9 105:6,9 106:13 pattern 58:4 179:18 persuade 106:18 34:10,22 38:9,12 111:2 113:11 pause 31:6 154:14 people's 94:14 134:4 41:20 49:15 50:14 117:9 128:18 Pausing 69:18 perceive 153:19 persuaded 118:15 53:18,21 56:12 129:13 131:23 pay 22:15 perceived 130:3 Peter 52:14 58:24 60:20 62:17 143:10 146:22 PCPM 169:8 perception 15:18 phone 27:14 40:9 63:25 69:2,4 147:20 163:17 Pearson 55:10 175:16,18,20 160:19 74:13 79:3 80:25 168:16 172:2 72:16 74:10 78:25 176:2 phrase 34:1 49:21 82:13 84:15 89:10 173:7 178:7 79:24 80:5 82:10 perceptions 76:22 50:4 87:14 111:23 91:11 96:19,23 pointed 86:18 82:11,14 84:13 152:10 155:9 158:12 171:11 99:16,19 101:16 points 8:4 51:10 94:23 106:1 176:3 174:21 175:9 104:12 105:4 79:4 94:12 100:3 114:17 130:19 perfectly 15:19 phrased 34:20 106:7 110:18,23 101:3 103:15 131:23 137:7 perform 161:3 pick 100:3 155:15 114:17 115:9,10 104:13 121:10 149:14,16 151:17 performance 11:1 picking 131:23 116:3 122:22 160:10 176:24 157:19 160:7,19 performing 69:19 picture 89:9 145:6 128:5,18 129:13 police 65:6 90:25 163:22 175:22 92:21 161:6 174:20 129:19 130:21 116:16 117:2 179:4 180:1 period 49:5 62:6 piece 55:20 132:20 131:14 132:22 125:4,18 126:4 181:24 83:7,16 95:24 piecemeal 142:9 133:20 134:20 129:23 130:1,2 pedestal 6:6 111:13 112:9,20 pieces 120:8,12 139:25 142:15 150:9 155:5 penalties 127:16 114:18 148:12 pitched 130:8 151:4,13 161:6,20 policies 12:2 56:19 pennies 64:9 perpetrator 62:23 place 2:18 16:18 162:10 171:17 65:5 84:21 100:8 penny 179:21 75:17 76:9 130:3 18:6 41:17 42:20 174:25 177:10 100:10,11,15,16 people 5:17,21 perpetrators 75:15 55:22 60:5 70:17 180:22 101:20,24 102:12 15:24,24 16:2,11 155:4 180:10,11 85:2 92:20 97:16 pleased 75:24 102:25 105:1 18:16 21:21,21 Perrin 38:17 101:21 102:1,15 171:7 107:13 110:21

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 202

111:18,19,21 46:8 83:21 84:1,3 143:16 previously 41:15 121:8 123:20 112:25 114:18 95:5 101:23 102:3 preferred 163:15 72:10 86:9 110:4 125:1,25 120:13 123:18 108:23 109:10 prejudice 46:21 priest 6:4,4,6 33:5 procedures 15:15 137:11,11,19 116:8,8 117:15,22 preparation 86:1 48:2,3 32:17 56:19 61:3 152:21 180:2,6 124:13 134:8,25 prepare 58:18 priesthood 26:20 91:7 100:16 101:8 policing 64:17 140:18 147:2 prepared 85:19 priests 8:25 35:11 101:11 102:2,6,15 70:18 148:8 169:6,23 165:19,21,23 37:24 41:12 49:4 102:20,23 103:6 policy 4:19 56:20 173:21 presence 13:16 55:22 56:5,9 105:1,16 107:1,11 64:15 71:6,9 positive 70:16 present 10:1 13:9 68:22 69:10 71:5 107:14 108:10,16 84:18 87:10 89:13 103:14 153:1,22 13:23 35:6 43:1 71:6 81:7 111:14,16,25 100:1,6 101:7 possibility 45:10 44:24 92:7 110:15 primarily 150:18 112:14,17,25 102:1,6,14,23 possible 36:13 presentation 97:7 164:18,21 113:5 114:19,19 103:6 105:16,16 45:25 60:6 82:1 159:12 primary 128:12 115:9,18 120:14 105:22 106:25 116:18,25 125:15 presentations principle 50:18 120:20 122:7,9,18 107:8,10 108:16 post 26:22,23 45:12 86:22 print 38:25 122:25 123:4,8,23 108:20 110:25 128:20 129:1 presented 7:16 prior 170:24 124:16 126:25 111:14,15,25 170:22 8:13 70:22 79:13 priorities 26:11 128:4 129:9 112:8,13,17 113:4 potentially 27:16 85:8,13 87:3 prioritise 92:25 131:25 133:5,13 113:9 114:7,19 167:24 100:17 113:10 priority 8:7 20:16 135:11 137:12 115:7,12 116:5 pounds 64:9 140:4 24:25 25:4 26:12 139:9,23 152:10 120:3,4,11,24 power 5:19,23 6:7 presents 87:21 private 35:23 158:19 122:9 123:19,23 6:15 44:4 147:8 President 2:10,11 privy 158:5 proceed 117:6 138:23 139:7,9,9 168:7 173:21 14:22 82:23,24 pro 103:20 141:2 proceeding 10:7 152:10 175:11 powerful 153:20 98:20 pro-Catholic process 17:9 86:7 178:19 180:12 powerless 30:11 press 18:20 19:5 156:15,19 86:16 88:11,21 policy/response powers 99:23 40:19 90:9,14 proactive 55:13 100:14 101:21 105:10 137:10 pressure 101:4 97:23 144:2 102:18 105:20 Pontifical 165:4 practical 85:4 pressures 24:23 probably 110:6 110:20 113:4 poor 26:18 practically 159:5 presume 57:9 149:3 161:17 115:6 124:3,4 Pope 12:3 35:5,6,12 164:15 175:2 prevalence 47:16 172:7 135:4,19 139:11 35:25 36:9,9 37:4 176:25 48:22 56:1,15 problem 21:10 141:3 144:8 145:2 37:9 39:12,13 practice 6:22 16:24 67:25 68:25 23:21,22 27:2 145:18,22 146:10 40:5 51:16 52:15 35:23 63:15 73:2 144:12,15,16 46:18 50:19 67:18 148:3,3,21,23 52:20,23 56:3 96:2 112:7 118:14 prevalent 16:1 68:15 70:9 71:14 149:2,7 154:4 81:6 168:5,8 153:6 156:9 164:5 24:12,14 71:15 77:8 80:19 167:13 179:1,7 176:12 practices 12:2 prevent 18:6 22:12 80:21 81:17 87:19 180:18 Popes 55:21 56:1 152:21 158:19 128:23 129:2 100:10 145:22 processes 158:17 population 71:8 practising 156:5,8 158:18 175:23 procurement port 21:12 praised 35:15 preventing 131:24 problems 61:9 167:13 Portsmouth 8:22 prayers 34:18 132:11 133:1,10 97:24 146:2 174:9 prodigal 78:18 9:20 47:24 35:11 prevents 158:14 174:18 produce 80:6 85:10 pose 121:16 precludes 158:9 previous 56:13 procedure 32:2 produced 55:25 posed 99:20 predating 58:10 63:9 64:19 66:5 107:8 108:21 58:12 59:4 60:5 position 3:1 16:3 predecessor 14:11 68:7 85:1 136:12 110:25 115:7,12 60:13 85:20 154:1 28:20 30:2 39:5,6 36:9 110:12 143:15 120:3,4,12,22 154:3 160:20

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 203

162:16 163:3 88:8 145:11 28:12 36:7 38:6 115:17 123:5 re-engage 48:6 164:2 146:14 48:24 69:21 71:20 127:15 147:19 reached 146:21 producing 87:12 propose 81:1 80:24 163:8 152:4 reacting 104:10 product 67:8 proposed 42:25 publishing 39:1 questions 53:6,7,8 reaction 14:25 production 91:22 43:22 92:8 71:16,17 82:2,3,5 70:24 71:6 professional 64:6 prospective 83:11 pull 161:20 170:14 99:20 149:13,14 reactions 9:7 72:7 64:11 84:5 103:24 protect 20:9 128:23 purely 43:4 149:15 181:1 reactive 55:12 104:1,2,3,5 133:23 purpose 14:7 55:2 quick 129:16 144:2 158:20 protecting 121:22 55:20 64:24 69:1 quicker 112:10 reacts 55:5 professionally protection 33:12 69:7,15 70:15 quickly 12:21 read 36:14 62:25 164:2 51:16 109:5 118:9 77:14 102:16 27:18 64:13 79:2 119:16 professionals 3:5 118:23 171:15 152:17 168:22 quite 3:9 10:8 120:4 132:14,20 90:22 91:2 154:21 180:13 purse 167:21 20:11 33:18 41:1 133:9 167:2 155:3 protocols 5:9 8:17 push 173:4 70:24 74:3 75:23 reader 120:8 professions 90:25 15:16 17:8 39:14 put 16:23 18:12 87:20 107:12 123:14 profound 23:23 64:16 65:5 20:21 26:1 27:21 115:13 120:18 reading 7:4 23:25 profoundly 35:14 proven 144:23,25 28:6 56:20 58:6 141:1 155:1,10 65:2,6 132:13 35:20 provide 69:9 130:5 69:2 72:6 77:16 156:24 159:21 ready 52:12 programme 9:2 145:11 165:7 86:15 89:4 92:11 165:20 169:5 real 6:15 30:11 10:2 145:13 168:24 179:2 92:14,20 97:16 176:22 177:4 68:14 71:3 146:11 159:11 166:15 provided 32:23 98:3 100:16 quote 50:4 175:22 153:14,16 progress 7:1,17 8:3 46:20 50:4 55:10 102:13 134:21 quoted 38:17 reality 17:11 35:21 10:4,11 12:12 67:7 75:7 84:14 138:11 139:12,16 quotient 156:3 168:7 176:3 65:20 66:10 119:6 136:19 141:1 144:5,6 really 7:24 21:3 140:19 141:15 151:14,18 162:8 148:24 154:5 R 31:23 33:21 44:2 142:14 174:10,10 165:5 168:21 156:20 173:7 Rachel 93:10 49:17 51:13 75:14 progressed 60:14 provides 90:6 178:11 radical 11:22,23 77:19 91:5 97:18 progressing 10:7 providing 72:2 putting 3:13 28:19 raise 63:17 64:10 97:21 103:24 project 57:1,12 153:2 64:9 79:14 88:9 114:12 148:2 135:17 143:1,2,25 140:10 156:11 provincial 33:8 102:1 160:1 raised 44:15 47:3 153:19 155:10,23 167:8,15 provision 50:20 49:12 91:25 97:11 156:16 159:1 promised 51:20 152:24 Q 102:22 107:2 163:11,21 164:19 promote 106:10 PS 60:10 qualification 34:20 122:13 125:22 166:23 168:3,22 promoting 106:13 psychological 35:10 128:16 154:9 168:23 172:7,22 pronouncements 148:11 qualifications 160:4 165:12 172:23 174:24 35:24 public 1:4 11:13,17 32:19,20 ran 159:12 175:13 176:17 proper 62:3,5 11:19 19:21 27:16 qualify 33:1 36:25 rang 28:3 40:10 177:3,7 178:13 properly 29:23 28:18 35:24 114:8 quality 101:19,24 range 3:8 11:2 179:2,12,12 112:5 148:6,21 132:16 150:25 102:24 136:20 103:21 142:10 180:19 149:7 168:15 publication 34:24 144:5 ratified 2:10 18:5 rearrange 149:22 proposal 19:6 43:6 publicity 132:18 question 6:4 13:11 ratify 110:24 reason 10:9 77:6 74:25 75:5,6 publicly 11:17 16:7 37:18,20 ratifying 139:11 111:9 168:14 85:10,19,23,25 38:21 41:16 51:13 41:7 51:4,6 56:8 rationale 18:13 reasons 69:20 86:25 88:3 151:23 52:16 78:14 83:8 88:5 42:7 76:17 proposals 51:7 79:9 published 11:9,10 92:18 108:14,15 rationalising 77:15 rebuffed 75:1

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 204 recall 7:16 137:21 recourse 32:4 reflects 4:1 35:4 146:16 150:13 154:25 168:10 175:8 173:5 refusal 31:14 86:24 157:18 162:12 169:15 receive 38:7 66:18 rectify 43:8 110:24 113:12 177:19 reluctance 175:16 109:25 113:22 rectors 119:23 118:11 relations 132:16 relying 64:7 70:6 152:18 172:9 red 10:8 refuse 17:16 78:10 relationship 12:4 remain 35:20 45:12 received 38:15 64:4 redacted 31:2 refused 30:17 43:3 44:4 47:17 50:21 114:13 110:2 124:1 165:7 redesign 160:25 31:12,12 32:14 68:10 71:22,24 remainder 40:14 receives 78:24 redesigned 162:12 92:19 99:25 113:9 72:12,14 62:25 receiving 116:22 redress 97:1,4,11 119:13 relationships 73:6 remaining 131:1,2 125:12 163:5 97:15 100:1 refuses 32:6 relatively 66:1 remains 158:13 recirculated 58:15 redundancy 45:7 refusing 33:25 81:24 108:7 remedial 137:19 recirculation 58:19 45:24 regard 33:24 34:1 115:20 remember 7:21 9:9 recognise 35:22 refer 17:23 36:5 42:24 74:25 relayed 27:9 32:18 12:15 13:8,22 105:12 115:19 115:8 122:21 regarded 26:22 release 9:3 18:10 24:3 26:20 recognised 61:9 131:9 158:1 regarding 45:4 relevance 121:21 43:14 48:16 95:10 97:24 98:25 reference 26:14 153:23 155:21 relevant 1:7 6:2 104:22,24 109:12 recognising 35:16 39:16 49:13 62:13 regardless 73:20 7:20 34:24 113:24 110:10 132:9,24 88:19,21 131:24 121:2 119:11 153:13 remind 171:23 recognitio 60:25 133:4 142:6 regular 25:7 158:15 reminding 40:16 138:12 143:17 152:15 103:16 148:13 reliant 92:1 remit 96:25 97:2,5 recommend 50:23 157:19 162:11 regularly 12:6,15 religious 2:7,12 5:5 152:23 169:19 86:11 145:12 referral 116:16 16:25 145:23 5:11,21,24 8:18 removal 35:25 recommendation 118:7,11,16 124:9 regulating 146:3 8:20 12:6 13:25 128:19 8:11 59:8,21 124:19 125:3 regulatory 146:20 14:4,10,24 16:19 remove 8:25 9:15 60:15,21 61:2,12 128:2 131:7 reinforced 28:16 16:25 17:3,6,13 removed 27:21 61:14 62:2,4,10 referred 14:14,22 52:19 55:19 17:22 18:11 19:15 28:1,3 49:5 62:11 62:18 66:17 82:25 22:8 37:9 117:13 reinforces 47:7 19:22,24 20:3,10 removing 129:3 84:25 88:10 138:2 118:3 120:22 147:4 20:18 24:9 26:9 remunerated 22:11 138:3,5,17 121:25 123:12 reinstate 28:6 28:19 29:14,24 renewed 83:17 recommendations 124:9 130:24 reinstated 28:9,10 30:6 33:24 36:24 rent 43:25 6:19 7:17,22,24 131:25 178:20 46:21 61:23 37:13 39:11 40:24 repeat 83:8 93:15 8:16 11:20 17:12 referring 3:7 7:5 relate 37:19 121:3 47:8 50:9,10 repentance 76:8 57:24 59:3,18 122:8 123:15,18 related 30:25 52:25 59:10,11 repents 78:19 65:13 72:2 81:2 125:17 126:6 121:14 60:7,23 73:24 replied 74:12 87:20,23 138:11 134:7 relates 34:8 107:18 82:25 83:2,12,15 reply 27:19 80:4 143:12,18 153:12 refers 45:20 120:7 116:11 127:4 90:5 95:12 96:5 report 7:20,23 8:11 recommended refine 69:11 143:19 96:13 100:19 10:5 48:24 49:1 69:23 114:23 reflect 4:13 51:11 relating 48:1 101:1,10,14 107:8 56:10 58:2 59:17 recommends 97:3 107:1 109:12 132:15 180:21 113:20 114:6 59:20 61:18,20 record 69:13 95:23 142:22 relation 6:2 9:6 119:23 120:14 62:1 69:17 84:25 143:18 162:3 reflected 3:1 8:16 14:15 31:4,6 35:4 121:10 123:13 85:10,13 87:6 recorded 2:21 23:20 44:15 61:21 99:23 124:10 125:9 92:24 106:15 records 39:20,21 reflection 80:21 109:5 116:12 127:14 134:22 108:1 117:19 77:22 102:5 129:7 119:22 121:4 137:16,17,18,23 120:25 130:21 112:13 reflective 77:20 125:20 135:11 147:7 148:4,6 133:18 138:2,4,7

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 205

142:13 143:1 137:22 38:15 40:18 41:13 161:13 166:18 126:24 127:5 145:2 153:4 requirement 100:9 41:14 61:17 75:23 177:13,16,18 128:1 129:18,21 162:17 164:7 requirements 93:1 106:24 reviewed 92:13 130:4,4,13 133:24 reported 68:7 26:16 107:24,25 109:25 102:2 115:17 158:13,16 69:17 116:9 requires 85:9 110:2,6 121:19 178:12 180:16 risks 42:23 118:21,24 121:19 research 36:22 140:5 168:25 reviewing 112:25 robust 7:23 180:5 123:25 126:13,20 64:23 71:3 173:19 175:11 149:1 robustly 114:20 130:2 131:3 resented 15:14,17 177:6 reviews 103:16 129:8 180:2 141:16 15:25 responses 51:20 revise 161:13 role 1:22 2:3,9 reporting 45:18 residential 8:24 110:5 153:22 revised 135:7 13:11 14:21 15:23 50:15,18,23 51:2 24:1 173:24 right 1:20 2:1,7,12 22:4,6,10,17 70:7,21 87:7 residentially 13:2 responsibilities 4:9,18,21 6:24 8:6 46:14 54:6 64:15 116:5 121:6 resignation 46:20 136:15 9:4 10:5,12,17 64:17 70:18 82:17 122:10,15 125:8 resigned 46:10,19 responsibility 12:8 18:7 19:18 82:22 83:11 84:9 127:4,7 128:15 resistance 8:23 13:14 16:23 29:20 22:1 23:24 27:10 87:5 99:19 104:18 130:23 146:19,21 11:10 15:23 40:16 51:15 52:8 27:11 28:25 29:4 104:23 117:17 146:25 147:1,5 resolve 24:5 148:1 87:5 89:7 91:8 29:14,18 31:14 121:4 134:18 reports 30:6 49:7 148:8 160:21,23 94:9 113:22 41:23 42:1,12 135:3,7,8,22 56:13 124:2 173:3 122:10,12 137:16 46:5 47:22 49:2 152:11 155:5 142:19 172:14 resort 172:24 140:19 142:23 54:7,16 56:7 57:1 158:5 161:6 represent 155:7 resource 17:17 responsible 21:18 59:6,16 61:4,22 164:25 166:8 representative 2:6 44:4 52:9 65:15 21:20 43:24 46:11 69:18 74:21 82:17 169:17,19 172:12 14:20 18:10,11 67:23 54:12 62:21 84:17 83:3,16 85:11,19 172:21 116:24 117:3 resourced 22:20 89:12 113:25 88:13 89:15,20 roles 43:2,21 119:8 123:19 65:11,13 67:19 rest 32:23 77:23 90:3 93:14 94:25 116:12 125:14,23 126:22 resources 21:20 restriction 31:4,6 95:13,15 98:10 Roman 35:1 representatives 22:3,18 24:17 result 19:11 105:23 100:21 102:8 Rome 19:14 37:14 48:20 90:1 93:12 27:2,5,10 63:25 results 11:10 105:5 109:6,8 37:16 41:10 52:15 93:19 123:24 64:3 67:18,24 retain 17:6 110:25 111:6,23 81:16,18 165:4 represented 13:24 136:8 142:4 rethink 161:13 115:14 118:19 169:8 170:1,9,18 177:16 Resourcing 22:13 retrospective 103:8 137:21 146:23 171:14 176:5 reputation 25:5 respect 106:10 return 11:25 53:12 149:3 150:15 Rose 25:22 49:12 76:18 128:12 118:13 94:19 131:16 151:1,7 156:20,24 roughly 126:18 reputational respective 43:2 revelations 142:20 157:8 161:12 roundtable 154:7 132:16 137:18 revert 181:5 163:6 169:11 Royal 54:2 97:9 reputations 128:8 respond 97:3 136:8 review 6:23 8:8,15 170:3 rule 158:18 request 58:20 143:25 148:17 10:17 12:11 48:11 right-hand 130:22 run 14:19 74:18 165:7 158:17 171:19 56:21 63:11 69:23 173:12 175:10 running 64:11 requested 58:17 responded 40:16 88:7,10,12,14,15 rights 40:17 65:25 69:22 87:3 78:25 89:6 102:14 104:7 ring 160:19 167:22 require 147:3 responding 37:17 104:9 108:16 risk 113:11 116:20 running-total-type required 9:4 46:9 129:17 112:8 114:18 117:15 118:2,17 69:25 59:4 85:18 99:12 response 18:18 135:6 142:2 143:3 121:16 125:2,12 rush 177:3 100:7 117:11 24:24 25:2 31:22 143:8,10,11 146:6 125:19,19,21 rushing 168:16 118:10,24 124:12 31:24 34:24 37:12 149:8 154:4 126:2,8,13,14,19

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 206

S 116:2,17,24,25 166:5,6,14,15,18 140:17 sector 54:4 136:6 Saad 1:4,5,11,12 117:3,10,12 118:6 166:21 167:3,12 school 37:2 39:18 secular 11:8,20 31:3 47:15 53:6 118:14,21 119:7,8 167:14,25 169:3 39:20 30:5 33:16 47:9 53:11,16,20,21 119:24 120:9,20 169:15,20,24,25 schools 1:19 11:18 51:22 64:20 76:19 82:2,9,12,13 122:1,4,11,18,25 170:3,24 172:12 Scicluna 51:15 secure 60:24 94:17,23 131:13 123:4,9,19,21,24 174:12 176:8 scope 89:4 108:17 see 2:19 5:5 8:23 131:17,21,22 123:25 124:1,13 177:12,18 178:17 142:7 26:12 43:3 49:23 149:13,18 181:18 124:16,17,20,21 178:23 179:4,5,24 scoped 88:23 50:25 55:4,18 181:22 182:1 124:23 125:14,15 180:2,3 scoping 89:1 58:4,4,19 59:5 sad 33:4 125:21,23,24 SAP's 169:14 Scotland 14:11 74:13 76:12,20 safe 43:15 140:21 126:21,22,22 sat 13:17 66:16 Scottish 37:18 78:8,11,14,21 157:16 167:8,20 127:2,10 128:17 72:10,11 161:23 screen 2:16 7:3 89:10 97:2 98:18 167:24 129:24,25 130:5,7 170:8 171:9,10 20:22 34:7 49:16 105:8,17 106:5 safeguard 120:9 130:8,15 131:6,10 satisfactory 43:16 50:11 69:3 71:20 109:2,5,16 115:13 128:24 158:6 133:22 134:4,6,10 satisfy 79:18 74:13 127:13 123:1 131:17 safeguarded 145:8 134:13,16 135:2,9 Savile 40:7 129:19 151:13 135:9 138:14,18 safeguarding 1:14 135:24 136:4,6,15 saw 2:3 7:12 15:14 152:13 161:20 149:8 152:14,17 1:23,25 3:7,8 4:2 138:18 139:10,20 24:8,8,9 40:20 scrutinise 129:8 153:19 162:10 4:12,23 8:12,24 142:2,11,17,24 61:10 93:6 152:11 scrutinised 114:20 166:8 167:2,10 13:10 14:15 15:20 144:20 145:8,18 saying 9:2,13 24:3 180:3 173:17 174:11 16:18 17:4,5,6,14 145:20 146:1,6,6 26:7 27:14,20 scrutiny 11:19 87:8 175:18 17:17,21 20:23,25 146:11,17 147:7 34:12 50:8 52:19 90:7 180:5 seeing 103:11 21:3,7,8,10,11 148:2,22 149:8 74:11 85:19 91:24 sea 179:17 176:17 23:4,20 24:5,16 150:19,22 151:2 122:15 123:10 seat 150:2 seek 39:1 118:6 24:22 25:12,16 152:21 158:13 124:4 125:22 second 4:9,16,17 seeking 26:3 79:19 26:8,16 29:21 164:20 166:11 134:3,6 143:1 11:4 38:11 52:6 103:1 30:3 32:4,18,22 174:16,18 163:18 168:23 54:24 57:22 70:4 seen 3:11 11:23 32:25 33:1,12 Safer 57:1 65:24 says 4:3 5:13 6:9 84:16 91:14 100:4 43:11,12 56:17,20 37:17 41:6 46:12 74:25 140:10 21:5 36:5 50:15 109:12 118:22 57:23 73:5 75:18 47:8 49:8,14,19 safety 118:11 119:2 59:16 63:2 69:6 128:6 137:7 84:4 91:21 134:14 51:15 52:8,9 53:5 121:21 70:11 78:23 81:11 162:10 135:19 140:24 56:19 61:3 62:21 sake 119:16 90:3 104:13 secondary 34:2 143:21 145:24 67:11 75:13 84:8 salaries 43:25 116:14 128:2,21 secretary 2:5 12:7 151:11 153:15 84:18 85:4,8 Salle 39:17 129:16 130:1 12:10 22:8 23:2 173:14 179:16 87:10,15,18,18 sanction 4:18,20 162:6 167:5 168:5 28:24 29:4 44:14 sees 12:1 88:2,7,10,16 9:21 scandal 15:7 45:19 83:3,4,9,12 segment 81:23 89:18,24,25,25 SAP 85:15 151:4,7 128:23 129:2 93:13,20 96:17 select 111:7 90:2,6,8,12,15,19 151:19,24 152:15 131:24 132:1,9,17 section 98:24 selection 179:1 90:24 91:7,7 153:6,7 154:15,19 132:23 133:4,10 101:17 115:11 self-reflective 77:9 93:25 96:8,8,12 155:21 157:12 133:12 173:23 116:3,10 119:17 seminary 34:16 97:20 98:13 99:8 158:9 159:5,12 scenario 148:18 119:19 122:19,23 119:23 102:10 104:7,16 160:1,10,14,16,17 schedule 58:12 125:25 126:7,10 send 110:5 170:15 106:11 107:10,20 161:2,3 163:10 59:2 128:19 130:22 senior 52:15 53:3 107:22 108:4,6,7 164:14,16,19,24 scheduled 157:10 158:14 159:13 54:2 73:1 109:6 114:12 165:2,5,9,19 scheme 97:1,4,16 169:23 sense 3:17 23:1

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 207

48:17 50:7 54:25 56:22 63:12 84:24 signed 100:12,20 six-month 112:20 sorted 111:18 55:3,19,20 67:1 85:25 86:7 93:4 101:14 138:13 sixth 173:7 sorts 152:10 68:14,22 70:9 98:20 99:6 106:12 significant 5:23 size 68:20 70:9 sought 10:19 77:7 78:9 94:11 107:13 141:14 8:13 16:6 22:21 skills 156:1 sounds 176:21 107:23 132:2,5,24 144:10 151:9 37:6 52:13 87:17 slightly 41:4 168:9 Southwark 47:1 133:5,14 147:17 156:6 112:1 116:21 slipped 129:11 Spaces 57:1 65:24 147:19 160:15 sets 85:6 106:3 117:16 118:2 slow 65:22 66:10 74:25 140:10,21 165:10 171:3 139:8 158:2 148:12 158:16 110:5 157:16 167:8,20 173:20 174:6 setting 35:8 55:14 significantly 35:19 small 115:21 167:24 175:12 84:17 86:2 89:12 87:19 snapshot 69:21 Spain 176:14 sensed 72:5 121:5 140:17 signing 157:20 social 48:10 84:6 speak 12:25 13:22 sensible 58:5 151:7 178:10 signpost 7:10 91:1 129:23 14:20 17:21 39:1 161:19 settings 156:13 signposting 119:11 society 75:10,17 40:11 66:8 94:8 sensitive 93:1 setup 15:21 17:24 silence 25:3 51:21 76:3 100:13,21,23 136:20 137:4 sent 27:19 60:9 42:10,20 silent 13:9,19 100:25 120:17 138:13 176:8 79:23,24 80:2,4 setups 3:17 similar 32:13 60:14 sold 87:16 speaking 66:9 98:4,9,12,15 sexual 47:25 54:6 128:18 141:13 solely 64:7 70:6 158:9 173:6 102:9 110:11 54:14 74:19 76:18 165:24 solve 80:18,21 Spear 53:16,19,22 sentence 27:22 28:1 80:22 142:20 Similarly 79:5,6 81:23 63:2 65:18 82:3,6 28:4,6,9 97:19,20 shan't 62:25 80:23 86:18 solved 81:17,18 94:2 140:1,12 sentiment 105:12 110:21 simple 18:25 66:1 somebody 14:19 141:6 143:22 separate 30:13 41:4 shape 48:8 151:23 81:5,24 107:12 16:14 23:11 26:22 144:7 181:20 59:13 88:4 108:24 share 29:2 simpler 163:15 32:2 33:16 40:12 spec 104:18 134:17 145:4 shared 46:15,16 simplistic 163:15 44:5 57:8 75:25 special 61:1 178:8 148:22 119:1 simply 16:3 18:16 76:1 88:17 89:5 specific 66:9 100:8 separately 19:14 sheds 71:12 18:18 42:17 48:19 94:14 102:23 111:9 140:9 152:4 37:23 shocked 68:4 90:13 172:8 103:6,7,8 117:5 152:4 155:14 September 58:9 short 12:17,23 sin 78:20 132:6 123:20 126:18,19 169:19 79:24 88:14 43:20 53:14 70:22 sincere 172:9 127:7 129:3 specifically 54:4 serious 127:9 94:21 130:18 sinner 78:19 146:12 147:1,11 79:9 169:17 seriously 4:1 32:24 131:19 151:21 sins 76:9 148:23 149:9 178:19 180:21 service 45:5,7 shorter 112:10 Sister 3:19 14:16 son 78:18 specification 59:12 65:23 66:1 show 52:10,11,12 15:22 soon 45:24 116:17 104:23 66:7,25 74:18,24 showed 49:4 sit 33:21 78:8 104:5 116:25 125:15 specifics 63:18 89:18 157:15 showing 132:18 sits 88:8 89:18 139:13 spectrum 155:8 167:5 shown 162:18 168:7 sorry 3:9 18:9 spend 24:16 25:16 services 54:13 shows 35:18 36:5 sitting 177:4 27:25 34:17 44:21 26:5,8 95:20 70:21 84:7 92:4 36:22 situation 4:14 44:6 60:2 83:8,19 spent 64:4 80:25 118:4,8 119:12 Shrewsbury 32:13 45:22 78:3 113:7 93:15 112:16 150:10 176:10 129:23 178:9,11 side 26:10 64:9 situations 87:22 122:21 127:24 spirit 161:8 178:15 130:22 160:1 121:8 133:8,9 140:7 spiritual 132:6 session 13:18 173:12 175:10,18 six 14:13 66:3 148:7 169:10 spiritually 132:11 sessions 13:23 sign 4:3 157:23 112:14 170:11,11 170:23 172:21 133:1 165:1 sign-off 105:20 170:11 171:11,25 175:5 177:1 180:2 split 64:14,18 65:3 set 47:20 55:8 sign-up 4:5 172:6 178:4 sort 11:16 164:14 spoke 37:14 126:7

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 208

129:16 177:8 68:1 79:20 84:10 stopped 31:9 subgroup 47:21 121:24 spoken 100:15 84:13 90:9,14 stories 20:20 89:14 91:13 93:5 suitable 45:23 106:15 137:6 91:16 92:23 93:16 172:20 174:14,20 164:20 Sullivan 1:6,10,13 176:16 105:25 109:3 179:15 subgroups 95:19 2:17 6:17 45:21 spokesperson 110:19 114:10,16 straight 13:1 87:7 subject 2:10 5:8 50:12,16 51:6 38:17 116:4 136:18 178:20 11:19 18:1 36:3 53:9 110:13,14 square 42:4,10 137:7 143:16,19 strand 135:16 127:16 130:19 181:16 91:19 150:20 152:13 strategic 8:5,13 subjected 34:13 summarise 143:24 SS 69:7 153:8 159:10,17 16:22 29:7 46:11 subjective 38:19 summary 21:3 ST 59:16,19 62:15 165:6 178:22 54:22,25 55:16,18 submission 114:23 137:1,2 153:7 staff 44:1 45:16 statements 35:23 55:24 71:9 79:7 submitted 69:6 161:2 64:6,11,23 67:19 39:25 40:20 56:1 79:12,17 80:9,19 80:12,17 summer 97:3 103:24 104:1,2,3 statistical 36:19 84:8,18 85:6 87:9 subscribe 106:19 super 177:16 104:5 119:24 69:12 144:18 88:4 89:12 90:6 subscribes 107:13 supplied 158:2 stage 88:22 167:17 statistics 48:23,24 106:2,4,4,6,9 subsections 152:23 supply 160:9 standards 32:21 49:2 144:1,5,10 145:7 subsequent 138:15 167:14 84:21 89:13 status 51:25 59:3,6 strategy 2:18 6:20 subsequently 87:3 support 17:15 106:12 59:23 61:3,6 16:21 26:2 54:11 151:10 152:20 23:14 27:6,7 standing 9:13 62:16 63:1 83:22 54:15 55:1 65:3 substantially 79:10 36:13 38:1,3 86:10 120:16 72:6,9 79:10,18 102:2 39:16,24 50:8 stands 166:13 statutory 103:17 144:13 153:3 substantive 79:14 65:23 66:1 70:19 stark 35:4 142:20 108:1 117:14,19 stream 79:25 success 68:11 70:15 75:7 77:2 86:4,24 start 31:5 61:24 119:3,7 120:5,25 strength 3:23 successful 68:21 113:14 119:10 68:23,24 69:1 122:10 124:2,9 Strengthen 91:16 sudden 179:21 134:21 135:8,14 71:15 181:6 125:18 130:16,23 strengths 2:23 3:3 suffering 34:14,15 140:17,24 143:8 started 2:25 4:4 130:25 131:2,3 stressed 152:8 36:15 153:23 157:14,15 5:15 46:14 82:17 136:6 striking 51:21 sufficient 86:17 167:4 173:19,20 100:14 143:5 staying 147:9 struck 168:4 suggest 78:17 79:14 179:3 starting 57:22 step 75:10 76:2,11 structure 1:23 3:24 80:14 116:1 supported 14:22 120:2 162:23 76:11 105:18 15:21 17:4,7,24 117:21 128:11 26:19 136:16 State 36:3 107:5 147:7 148:8 29:16,21 87:5,11 146:5 supporting 1:7 stated 36:10 39:18 Stephen 53:16,19 89:9 119:24 suggested 17:2 80:3 23:4 26:25 54:5 52:16 55:21 62:13 53:22 181:20 123:21 127:2 80:13 87:11 115:7 86:13 135:19 statement 1:6 4:6 stepped 101:10 130:15 138:5 143:8 supportive 23:13 5:24 6:17 7:6 126:20 structures 3:17,21 162:21 29:6 147:16 8:10 15:4 16:9,17 Steve 80:6 16:10,11,14,18 suggesting 71:11 suppose 22:19 32:9 18:20,25 22:5 stick 166:24 17:8 18:2 34:5 126:7 36:24 107:18 23:16 27:12,17,18 stifle 111:23 70:17 133:23 suggestion 11:21 169:17 27:19,20 28:7,7 stifled 111:21 142:2 140:1 supposed 95:22 28:18 30:9 34:11 Stock 12:10 22:7 struggle 49:8 suggestions 91:15 sure 3:9 38:18 36:4 52:7,18 23:2 27:9 42:25 struggled 75:9 145:13 60:18 63:11 74:2 53:17 54:23 55:4 stood 9:2 37:21 struggling 17:13 suggests 133:7,8 75:1 86:13,16 55:9,9 56:25 73:19 174:23 suicide 37:8,10 100:23,25 102:15 57:21 58:7,8 stop 15:11 31:3 students 26:20 66:6 107:6 111:23,25 63:14 64:2 65:18 48:5 studies 85:2 suitability 62:12 112:11 120:23

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 209

124:3 135:20 162:17 167:5 145:23 148:25 tells 168:6 82:5,7 94:19 155:18 suspect 32:12 149:21 150:2 temporarily 129:4 123:1,2 131:22 surprised 31:22 suspected 180:10 161:25 164:24 temporary 128:19 149:15,22 150:2 173:11 180:14 171:2 175:19 128:25 181:1,3,5,7,8 survivor 21:12 40:1 suspicious 150:19 taken 51:22 53:11 ten 49:2 87:24 thanks 80:6 41:13 78:11 89:14 sustained 85:17 70:13 72:6,9 tendency 169:12 them' 34:18 93:3 105:8 150:5 Sustaining 69:5 88:22 115:3 tends 55:4 thematic 10:25 151:5,23 152:2,19 71:19 127:10 132:12 tension 20:12 136:24 137:3 157:8 179:20 SV2 54:5 133:2 137:13 tensions 11:24 theme 171:17 173:9 180:15 sworn 1:8,10 53:18 140:2,13 141:5,14 tenure 2:19 5:16 175:1 survivor's 165:8 53:19 82:11 146:5 166:22 6:21 7:12,14 themes 167:22 survivor-centred 181:16,20,24 179:18 10:22 15:9 16:7 theologian 78:22 76:4 SWOT 2:21 takes 40:6 45:8 21:4 41:24 44:10 theological 17:20 survivors 5:4 20:5 sync 111:16 122:9 124:21 54:18 58:10,16 theology 78:15 21:23 23:24 25:1 synergy 179:11 126:16 167:23 69:22 74:8,11 81:15 27:23 33:19,23 system 10:6 29:2 168:1 169:2 87:1 108:13 thereabouts 160:3 34:4 35:2,7,13,16 54:3 67:23 108:18 171:24 114:10,11 136:23 they'd 27:17 162:2 35:22 36:12,16 systematic 7:13 talk 78:7 123:18 138:7,10 139:3,4 thing 31:14,15,16 37:7,10,19,23 88:7 125:16 136:19 term 63:7 132:1 36:10 37:9 63:23 39:15,19 41:17 systematically 138:1 170:1 termed 138:11 75:18 78:10 47:11,15,18,22 56:18 talked 24:22 39:14 terms 1:18 5:5 146:23 158:11 48:4,7,19,20 50:8 64:19 66:5 163:23 21:17,18 33:2 163:21 164:13 51:12,23 52:1,4 T talking 57:20 36:10,19 39:21 166:9 168:17 52:18 54:9,13 tab 58:25 74:14 125:18 130:6 47:11 48:22 59:14 169:11 171:8 74:19 76:13 77:3 79:1 84:15 96:21 140:7 146:10 71:22 77:17 84:1 things 19:19 24:3 77:12 85:14 86:2 99:17 105:4 106:7 170:7 177:4 85:4 87:14,17 39:24 55:5 67:21 86:3,6 93:1,4 115:10 129:13,14 talks 126:1 88:1,18,21 90:2 72:7 76:5 77:17 105:7 114:20 130:20 137:8 task 146:4 151:22 91:4 95:18 101:7 108:15 143:2 115:2,8 132:10,25 161:21 171:13 tasked 89:3 101:12 102:10 153:19 154:4,5,5 133:11 152:8 table 71:2 161:24 teacher 1:19,19 103:5 104:5 156:23 157:12 153:13 154:18,20 170:9,12 173:12 teachers 50:25 107:20 108:6,7 158:25 161:12 154:21,22 155:5,8 Tablet 2:4 teaching 78:15 112:6 114:4 132:8 162:1 164:12 155:21,22 156:4 tailored 166:10 team 8:15 22:13 133:9,10 135:7 165:1 168:1,20 156:12,17 159:2,7 take 2:15 7:9,25 42:11 62:21 136:3,10,15 169:3 170:11,12 163:1,4,11 164:3 9:24 20:21 29:16 technically 28:23 138:18 140:16 171:11,25 172:4 165:23 166:6,7 44:22 48:7 56:10 32:9 142:3,6 144:21,24 174:8,19 176:19 170:19 171:2,4 56:13 60:5 68:6 teenage 33:3 146:20 147:24 176:20 178:11 173:6,10 175:12 69:2 71:9 72:3 teenager 33:4 148:16,19 152:14 179:23 175:20 176:14,16 84:15 89:6 91:11 teleconference 99:6 155:20 171:10 think 3:7,10,16 4:1 176:18 177:6,7,15 96:19 97:23 100:2 Telegraph 50:12 178:10 4:15,22,22,24 5:9 178:8,9,12,16 105:3 111:22 tell 6:5 67:17 68:14 terribly 11:22 5:17,25 6:2,2,7,13 179:6 113:6 119:14 108:5 172:20 territorial 61:1 8:7 11:7,16,18,24 survivors' 174:7 128:5,18 130:1,18 173:5,10 Terry 98:9 12:16,17 13:13 176:23 131:10,15 137:19 telling 146:22 testimony 55:20 14:13 15:8,10 survivors/victims 140:8 141:3 166:2 thank 47:15 53:8 16:9,21 17:10,10

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 210

17:19 18:25 19:5 156:23,24 157:3,6 176:16 178:24 73:6 143:21 175:9 tremendous 139:19 19:6,19,19,24 158:1,2,12 159:9 three-year 74:11 179:4 trial 36:3 20:17 21:11,22 159:20,20 161:12 96:14 told 9:14 18:23 tricky 168:23 22:1,1 23:5,15,25 161:21,22 162:8 threshold 118:2 44:10 56:9 57:6 tried 48:6 102:7 24:7 25:18 26:2,6 162:19 164:18 122:18,24 123:4,7 57:11,17 66:23 triggered 7:19 28:14 29:19,22,22 165:6 166:17,23 123:9,15 124:15 67:24 68:3,6 74:9 trivialise 176:21 29:24 30:1,1 33:2 167:11 168:3,14 124:17,19,22 75:3 80:1 110:7 true 79:20 80:14 33:14,23 34:14 169:3,4,22 170:2 125:20 126:11 140:12 157:4 175:2 176:25 36:16 39:5,11 170:10 171:8 thresholds 124:24 163:18 176:11 truly 29:10 91:17 41:7,8 42:9,12 174:10,10,13,20 124:25 179:15 trust 33:11 41:22 43:15 44:6,18 175:16,24 176:6 Thursday 1:1 80:8 tolerance 175:6 42:4 43:7 46:9 48:9,13,15,17 176:24 177:3,15 tick-box 136:23 tomorrow 136:21 47:20 54:9 89:21 49:10 51:2,10,21 177:18,21 178:21 till 45:13 166:19 181:5 89:22 120:17 51:25 52:13 56:3 179:4,7,9,9,15 time 3:10 12:9 13:8 top 4:17 30:15 81:6 147:2 179:13 58:7 59:19 61:15 181:5 14:13 17:17 19:20 89:11 96:24 105:5 trusted 30:3 52:12 66:9,11 67:15 thinking 162:20 21:9 27:11,12 105:5,9 119:20 53:4 68:15,17 71:10 third 14:5 96:24 36:8 43:11,11 123:1 128:5 trustee 44:18 54:9 73:9 75:18,25 101:16 45:11 50:18 51:3 162:11 170:11 100:14 76:2,3,25 78:4,5 Thomas 44:13,19 51:14 52:16 56:17 172:7 trustees 21:6,15,18 78:13,19 80:18 45:3 58:1,3 65:16,21 topic 9:6,18 16:5 22:14 38:1 41:22 81:3,17 87:17 thoroughly 23:10 65:21 66:17 70:3 22:3 28:22 41:19 42:23 43:24 44:23 91:3 92:2 94:6,15 23:11 70:4 72:10 80:6 63:25 67:25 71:22 45:23 90:4,5,11 101:7,12 102:1 thought 7:22 11:8 84:9,10 87:21 108:24 134:17 100:9,11,22 101:1 103:4 104:6 12:24 20:15 26:1 92:18 95:2 98:7 153:25 167:3 101:15 137:14,17 105:13 106:20 31:25 37:20 40:11 102:4,18 106:17 topics 177:10 Truth 156:11 107:6 108:8 99:3 107:23 108:2 109:7 110:3,11 total 69:22 135:20 try 16:23 20:1 44:6 109:20 111:13,24 108:11 127:5 112:23,24 119:15 154:19 71:14 77:19 78:8 112:10,11 115:22 159:14 163:1,11 128:11 140:16 totality 98:6 81:25 94:10 118:19 119:20 163:16 164:3 143:3 145:24 totally 92:1 173:24 109:12 148:16 122:25 123:14 165:15,21 170:6 147:4 148:12 touch 13:1 155:6 159:4 124:5 126:14,24 171:6,6 175:22 149:3 157:16 touched 29:11 trying 39:7 55:3 127:6 128:14 177:5 167:23 168:1 32:15 68:2 105:2 71:13 75:16 129:6 131:15 thoughts 34:18 169:2 179:18,19 tradition 6:1 102:13 134:8 134:8 136:1,2 35:11 105:7 170:4 timeframes 59:17 traffic 10:6 135:8 140:22 139:19 140:21 170:14 171:3 timely 93:24 training 8:24 9:12 148:11 171:23 141:22 142:1 172:6,6 178:4 152:18 9:14,22 64:16 174:5 143:14 144:16,19 thrashed 17:1 times 8:17 25:4,7 150:19,22 151:1 Tuesday 44:12 145:16 146:6,8,12 threat 18:22 86:16 53:2 94:6 95:3,10 157:13 159:10 147:11 146:19,21,23,25 threats 2:23 4:8 5:4 95:18 156:14 164:25 165:1,5,7 Turkson 52:14,25 147:3,12,23 6:9 157:9 159:5 165:14,15,17,17 turn 6:16 137:13 148:18 150:9,24 three 9:3 27:10 timetable 43:19 165:24 166:8,9,14 151:4 169:21 151:6,14 153:7,11 36:21 52:14 55:21 title 49:18 94:15 172:1 174:18 turned 80:2 153:14,18 154:8 80:25 83:7,17,18 119:19 translated 55:23 twice 13:2 95:10,13 155:9,20,23 121:10 157:6,7 titles 94:13 56:2 two 2:4 12:5,16 156:18,18,22,22 160:2 167:19 today 53:16 55:11 transparent 23:3 13:24 14:3,14

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 211

17:10 23:9 51:10 157:8 159:4 update 13:5,10 140:3 141:21 29:10 31:14 32:21 51:19 57:2,4 58:9 163:14 176:4 58:17 60:8,12 vice-rectors 119:23 33:13 38:20 43:12 65:13 66:22,25 understanding 160:9 176:6 victim 21:13 30:17 46:4 50:21 56:3 67:2 71:23,24 5:25 14:8 18:13 updated 59:5 31:12,19,20 32:14 61:11 63:9 64:20 72:2,11,15 73:10 23:23 28:20 47:16 104:23 109:10 36:20 40:2 41:13 72:16,18,19 73:2 85:9,20 89:11 48:22 53:3 57:3 115:13,21 150:13 76:10 78:11 93:3 80:11 85:16 91:19 93:12,19 95:16 68:15,18 71:8 160:7 105:8 109:14 98:2 103:4,23 109:15 111:8 72:1 76:17 103:9 updates 59:24 131:6 153:23 112:3 118:18 114:23 120:8,12 106:20 107:17,22 uplift 85:18 86:19 164:6 172:1 124:21 126:23 126:12 140:3 108:3 110:3 86:20 victim- 76:4 130:19 144:12 141:7 156:4,5,5 126:12 134:12 uploaded 115:22 victim/survivor 145:15 156:13 162:9 163:3 135:12,18 152:9 USA 69:8 78:24 163:13,16 163:17 177:10 155:25 use 34:1 69:11,16 170:10 173:9,19 views 21:3 98:21 two-way 154:3 understands 76:3 94:13 127:17 victim/survivors 155:8 type 123:1 175:6 understood 100:12 128:4 161:17,18 153:17 172:8 Vincent 42:13 112:1 117:23,24 171:11 victims 5:4 20:5,19 vindicated 47:2,3 U 135:1 136:12 usually 13:4 40:24 21:24 23:24 24:25 violence 54:14 UK 34:12 148:10 165:14 41:3 83:10 118:6 27:23 33:19,23 visit 135:9 ultimately 12:3 undertake 104:8 174:14 34:4 35:2,3,7,19 visited 52:20 28:12 51:20 177:14 35:22 36:4,11,16 vital 66:7 128:4,8 unacceptable 38:21 undertaken 111:3 V 36:23 37:7,10,19 128:11 43:20 148:3 validates 75:21 37:23 39:14,19 vocal 74:3,4,5 unanimous 15:8 undertaking 8:8 Valladolid 176:15 40:18 41:17 47:11 voice 14:18 17:21 uncooperatively 164:25 166:18 176:20 179:16 47:15,17,21 48:4 26:13 86:6 103:22 19:17 undertook 159:13 variance 117:23,24 48:6,20 50:8 156:24 174:12 under-reporting undetected 35:20 varied 16:18 51:12,22 52:2,17 voices 179:6 70:6 unequivocal variety 90:24 95:19 54:5,13 74:18 volume 1:8 53:17 underline 77:17 127:18,21 various 90:25 75:14 76:13 77:2 voluntarily 48:17 underlying 77:6 unfairness 173:21 155:5 77:12 86:6 93:1 voluntary 22:6 undermined 46:8 Unfortunately 35:3 vary 25:9,9 132:10,25 133:10 54:4 47:4,24 90:17 54:20 Vatican 36:3 51:17 152:9 153:13 volunteer 1:25 132:11 133:1 unhappy 148:23 vehicle 61:10 156:17 163:1,4 volunteers 59:12 underneath 139:10 unhealthy 42:11 Verona 35:4 164:2 170:19 119:25 125:9 167:5 unit 150:12 version 162:5,19 173:23 174:7 178:25 underpin 106:1 universally 30:2 165:13 175:12 179:6 vulnerability 5:4 underspend 85:16 university 69:23 versions 162:4 victims' 48:19 vulnerable 134:10 86:15 unreservedly 27:23 vicariously 48:2 176:23 understand 51:24 28:2 39:22 51:5 vice-chair 3:19 victims/survivors W 52:2 54:25 68:20 unsound 118:14 48:10 68:16 79:25 155:4 168:19 wait 103:5 112:19 71:14,15,24 74:22 unsubstantiated 82:18 83:2,19 180:11 180:23 75:9 76:3,25 77:2 131:5 93:10 video 165:16 Wales 9:1 13:15 77:10,13 78:6 unusual 19:21 vice-chairs 2:4 14:4 170:17 21:1 41:23 48:11 92:8 98:5 102:13 174:24 14:14 56:24 57:9 view 4:13 7:20 11:4 49:19 50:17 56:6 106:22 117:22 unwillingness 66:15 67:5 72:13 21:17,22,25 22:11 60:22 61:1 70:13 151:19 154:15,16 68:18 83:1 89:2 93:9,18 22:16 23:20 24:7 80:18,21 81:10,18

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 212

82:24 84:10 88:1 41:8,8 44:22 30:23 31:2,11 39:13 43:6 114:1 worth 70:12 116:13 120:1,11 45:15 56:3,15 47:1 111:8 165:8 129:9 174:2 worthwhile 166:23 120:25 133:25 58:5 61:23 67:17 whilst 15:6 86:23 work 10:5,17 13:6 wouldn't 6:5 9:14 137:13 142:12,22 67:22 73:25 77:15 97:17 16:4 17:5 19:11 20:19,19,20 24:11 Wales' 120:16 81:1,12,22 85:13 whistleblowing 22:21,22 23:11 24:14 25:14 33:2 want 2:15 5:21 85:17 92:16 99:11 44:16 158:22 27:13 45:11 46:9 97:16 103:10 11:12 12:4 18:16 113:1 121:11,15 whole-system 48:10 51:1 59:11 112:4 138:17 18:17 22:24 27:16 133:7 138:7 104:9 62:13 67:20,21 write 31:20,21,24 30:13 34:9 41:20 139:16 143:11 wholly 38:20 70:18 84:6 86:1,4 41:12,17 50:3 42:21 44:25 49:17 150:9 153:19 widely 24:14 93:2 96:11 101:21 writes 41:14 58:24 63:25 65:2 156:20 158:7 wider 17:19 33:9 102:16 103:20 writing 38:14 70:25 69:2 75:24 96:23 161:11,15 163:13 33:16 81:24 106:2 110:18 113:13 97:18,21 99:16,18 164:25 168:10 142:19 115:2 121:24,24 written 38:9,21 104:8,8,12 105:18 173:15 174:13 wife 1:25 133:25 135:12 80:10 170:5 115:6 127:17 177:13 178:14,17 willing 31:18 33:24 136:7 143:5 wrong 31:15,16 129:14 139:25 179:21 147:16 148:16 150:20 41:25 48:12 52:10 142:13,15 147:21 ways 10:19 22:19 wind 55:5 152:20 153:2,24 78:10 138:20 156:6 159:4 26:24 97:25 99:1 wish 50:22 154:11,14,15 147:22 168:19,19 169:11 99:3 wished 39:6 157:12 158:3 wrote 34:24 36:7 172:8 173:20 we're 156:22,25 wishes 100:8 160:7,7,24 161:2 38:6 49:16,25 wanted 2:24 11:15 weaknesses 2:23 wishing 17:6 161:22 162:11 74:10 109:7,22 17:25 19:24 21:1 4:16 176:21 164:13 165:13 24:20 31:23 65:3 web 113:6 withdraw 46:19 166:24,24 169:1 X 86:16 92:6,20 website 91:22 withdrawal 128:25 169:21 172:12 X 181:14 98:18 101:11 112:18 170:17 withdrew 53:10 174:10 176:9 Y 106:25 111:18 websites 49:8,9 82:8 149:17 181:4 177:10,11,18,20 148:1 162:17 week 22:6 40:10 witness 1:5,8 7:5 177:20 178:1,2,14 year 6:22 10:2 13:2 170:1,4 180:1,22 80:11 95:20,22 8:9 22:5 53:7,10 180:21 25:16 35:25 49:17 wanting 23:3 96:2 109:21 53:16,18 55:9 workable 138:23 56:13 61:15 62:5 wants 123:22 132:14 141:24 64:19 66:5 82:4,8 worked 16:24 68:7 70:4 74:8 172:15 weeks 52:14 82:9 132:13 25:20 46:18 50:24 88:13,20,22 94:25 wasn't 3:18 10:23 weight 77:18 99:12 149:17,18,20,22 54:2 84:9 108:4 95:4,6,8,9,13,18 10:23 11:21 19:20 welcome 1:3 13:17 175:9 181:4 150:24 155:3,4 96:22 99:2 115:23 26:25 31:18 32:2 73:21 witnesses 128:24 workers 59:15 91:1 136:19 137:4 41:17 42:5 44:10 Welsh 167:7 wonder 49:20 working 23:1 25:23 141:18,23 157:9 46:16 48:19 83:4 went 23:25 40:9 52:17 48:5 62:11 88:16 157:10 159:5,9,23 83:5 97:12 112:22 48:12 52:20 95:25 wondering 33:19 111:14 112:3 160:2 169:4,24 133:3 138:25 99:4 154:24 180:3 120:6,8,10 121:1 178:25 179:1 139:1 140:25 162:25 163:9 Wookey 60:10 136:5 150:12,20 year's 56:10 148:6 164:1,1 164:6 166:3 word 5:14,14 35:10 154:22 164:4 years 27:10 49:2 177:3 170:13,17 174:15 75:18,25 111:23 workload 95:23 51:19 57:2,4 62:4 watch 42:18 weren't 5:3 13:25 127:17,18,21 141:22 65:24 66:4,6,25 way 4:20 17:1 46:3,4 51:24 128:4,11 133:12 works 40:8 67:2 75:5 80:25 22:24 31:10 34:17 72:14 164:11 179:9 world 33:17 37:16 83:7,17,18 87:24 34:19 36:13 40:15 Westminster 30:17 words 16:9 39:12 worshipped 180:11 95:16 146:20

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry Roman Catholic Church Investigation Wider Hearing 31 October 2019 Page 213

150:10 157:6,7 1950s 39:18 167:11,17 176:10 50 49:4 167:19 178:24 181:11 53 181:20,22 years' 66:22 70:12 2 2021 106:5 115:17 55 62:18 84:6 2 50:14 53:17 59:8 21 99:17 55,000 64:4 young 133:23 69:4 79:3 85:5 22 15:4 115:10 youngsters 34:15 96:23 106:7 165:9 6 115:14 117:9 23 30:8,15 138:1 6 30:16 34:9 69:4 Z 137:8 161:21 24 78:25 91:13 92:24 zero 175:6 167:2 174:25 25 129:13 104:12 116:4 2,000 40:10 26 130:20 128:5 0 2.00 94:19,22 27 129:14 62 130:24 2.11 92:23 64,000 64:4 1 28 131:1 2.12 93:16 29 45:1 142:15 66 62:10 1 1:8 59:8 116:22 20 84:14 106:7 181:11,16,18 200 40:9 3 7 1.00 94:20 2004 120:10 3 82:17 97:18 116:3 7 54:23 74:14 106:1 1.4 84:16 2007 120:11 138:4 119:17 162:9 127:25 153:11,12 10 57:21,22 110:23 2008 58:9 84:24 173:8 161:2 131:3 162:11 86:19 3.00 131:18 70 95:25 165:6 2009 58:9 120:17 3.1 105:25 72 60:21 62:2 138:2 10.15 1:2 2010 58:9 3.15 131:16,20 76 7:22,25 10.30 181:6,11 2011 2:19 58:9 30 80:15 95:24 8 10.4 114:16 2012 1:15 2:14 24:3 150:10 11 58:25 97:18 54:6 60:4 150:24 31 1:1 8 16:16 60:11 79:1 11.30 47:12 2013 58:9,13 59:5 37 130:20 109:3 178:23 11.37 53:13 2014 21:4 151:21 82 181:24 182:1 11.50 53:12 2015 1:16 45:1,11 4 85 40:11,13 11.53 53:15 4 1:3 2:19 99:19 82:17,20 92:22,24 9 12 22:4 37:22 59:19 111:6,11 112:8 119:19 169:21,23 9 56:24 110:19 59:21 62:4,15,17 2016 53:23 54:7 171:13 177:24 128:19 66:3 137:7 138:6 79:24 85:13 86:18 4.1 109:2 95 95:25 150:7 99:18 101:22 4.2 125:1,5,25 13 50:13 62:24 150:7,24 127:24 105:4 2017 54:19 58:15 4.2.1 125:7 126:6 14 96:21 142:15 59:6,23 64:3 80:1 4.30 181:9 149 182:3 80:9 84:10,14 40 84:6 15 21:2 57:21 62:9 91:13 109:8 45 70:12 128:18 114:11 159:16 5 150 182:5 2018 88:25 95:22 16 60:19 64:1 106:5 109:21 5 6:17 8:9 15:5 18 65:18 95:24 111:6,12 112:8 74:11 96:22 114:17 120:9 130:21 101:16 133:19 19 59:6 68:1 170:24 133:18 145:2,5 153:12 177:20,24 2019 1:1 53:24 74:9 5.1 110:18 1950 69:10 115:14,21 162:6,7 5.3 110:23

Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS